Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

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.

[drstrange169]

Hello John,

I hope that little outburst made you feel better, now could we get back to the actual debate?


>> However, you are seemingly so lacking in objectivity you even challenge this basic fact: if Mizen didn't have an impeccable record then he must have been subject to disciplinary action …<<

I guess I must be lacking objectivity.

Impeccable: from the Latin, meaning without sin. OED – of the highest standards.

What evidence suggests Mizen surpassed his fellow police colleagues of mere good record to be accorded the accolade” impeccable”?

If no record of wrongdoing defines “impeccable” should Xmere also be awarded the adjective?

David mentioned two citations Mizen got for capturing criminals, does this make him impeccable?

Sgt Thick received, according to Lloyds Weekly, 121 such citations, does this mean he was “without sin” or was of “the highest standards?


>>And, just in case you're still struggling with the basic argument, let me provide you with an analogy. William Wallace …<<

I’m definitely struggling with your analogy. Could you explain how this in any way relates to the PC Mizen or is it in some way related to Xmere?


>> Nor does the evidence of Paul, such as it is, support your attempts to denigrate an officer with an impeccable record.<<

He’s what I said about Mizen’s testimony concerning the extra policeman,
“… a perfectly understandable mistake …”

Could you explain how that is “attempts to denigrate”?

What I am questioning, amongst other things is your use of the word “impeccable”. As I see it as an attempt at deliberate bias on your part when you put it in context against Xmere.


>> Finally, may I respectfully offer this piece of advice.<<

You haven’t shown any degree of respect thus far, so I’m assuming you don’t mean what you’re writing.


>> Before you seek to patronize another poster with nonesense such as, "if we take the drama out of your post" …<<

Caligo Umbarator posted a polite and reasoned post (#544) to which you replied using some of the following terms,

"Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid …"
"… assuming it was an outrageous lie?"
"… frankly, that's absurd."
"Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story!"
"Are you seriously suggesting …"
"… any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?"
"And if your not suggesting that's what happened, what exactly are you suggesting?"
"… then I'm afraid I cannot help you."

I don’t know you, so perhaps in your world, that is not considered “being dramatic”, but to the rest of us it's an over the top response to Caligo's post.

My point in post #567 remains, “... if we take the drama out of your post and look at the actual information available ...”

It is interesting between all the insults you haven’t actually addressed any of the points raised.

[John Wheat]

That may be true about advocates of Cross as the Ripper, John, but why have you felt the need to make such a point in middle of this current debate which is simply about whether there is any suspicion attaching to anything that Cross did?

To David

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

Cheers John

[Columbo]

Gentlemen, I really should visit Hallands Väderö more often.

Coming back, I find how David throws out the simple thruth that on the surface of things, Lechmere seems to have lied to Mizen - and he is immediately attacked from all directions by people who cannot see the simple truth of what he is saying.

He qualifies hios statement by saying - a thousand times - that he is NOT saying that Lechmere DID lie to Mizen, nor that he would himself in any way believe that the carman is more probable to have lied than not.

Does it help? No. He has combined the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" and that is something that one must not do out here, no matter what.

Posters flaunt their ignorance by stating "A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead", without taking any notice about the fact that Mizen never said that he was informed about how the woman could be dead. Consequently, if Mizen was truthful, he was NEVER told that the woman could be an emergency at all.
So EXTREMELY basic. And so totally impossible to swallow.

Read the inquest reports before commenting on the errand, and form a durable ground to stand on.

And for Gods sake, David, learn from your mistake! Never, EVER, use the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" in the same sentence, for it will bring down the wrath of the selfproclaimed rigtheous (but rather daft) guardians of the carman upon your head.
You are not wrong, of course - and you really cannot be wrong on this errand, the way you worded it - but be kind to yourself and avoid upphill struggles like these. They will only make people think you are a closet Lechmerian, and you will begin to significantly use up whatever trust you have built.

Welcome to my world, David. Pretty, ain´t it?

Glad your back! I looked up the islands. Beautiful place.

Columbo

[harry]

I agree with you absolutely John.
It is what every defence of Cross should have.It is what he is entitled to.
A belief of innocence is what a defence would have shown,had a prima facia case been acted on, We have been told there was a prima facia case,should anyone state I am making that up too,and before a prima facia case,there must be a police charge.There was nothing, which proves what?.In my opinion a complete show of police trust in the evidence Cross gave.
Of course today,anything that might seem to implicate Cross is eagerly seized upon,there is so little to choose from.Here it is the words(unsupported by evidence) of a P.C. Plod,15 years in the force and still a constable.Might seem a little hard on Mizen,but it is a fact. Then there is my lack of English expression.Seems to annoy at least one poster,but why it should have any impact on events of 1888 is a mystery to me.As is the fact, the poster responds to something he cannot fathom.Strange!

[Pierre]

It seems obvious that there is dissonance. Mizen gives one account, Cross another. Both cannot be true.

Which leaves us with several permutations of what happened.

1: Cross lied. A petty meaningless lie, but he lied.
2: Cross misspoke. No malice intended, the words just came out wrong.
3: Cross told the truth

Or
1: Mizen lied. No reason for him to, and certainly not about that of all things, but he did it anyway.
2: Mizen misremembered. He generally recalls being needed in a certain place, he shows up to find another cop there, he rewrites the dialogue in his head to reflect that, like we all do from time to time. Totally understandable given the circumstances.
3: Mizen told the truth

And then when asked about it on the stand,
1: Cross lied again about what he said
2: Cross had no memory of saying what he said, and since he didn't remember seeing a cop, can't think why he would have said such a thing
3: Cross told the truth
or
1: Mizen lied about what was said to him
2: Mizen sincerely remembers Cross saying something that Cross really didn't say.
3: Mizen told the truth

Or both men both lied a little and got it wrong a little.

Does that seem to sum it up?

Both could have been truthful.

[Pierre]

Gentlemen, I really should visit Hallands Väderö more often.

Coming back, I find how David throws out the simple thruth that on the surface of things, Lechmere seems to have lied to Mizen - and he is immediately attacked from all directions by people who cannot see the simple truth of what he is saying.

He qualifies hios statement by saying - a thousand times - that he is NOT saying that Lechmere DID lie to Mizen, nor that he would himself in any way believe that the carman is more probable to have lied than not.

Does it help? No. He has combined the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" and that is something that one must not do out here, no matter what.

Posters flaunt their ignorance by stating "A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead", without taking any notice about the fact that Mizen never said that he was informed about how the woman could be dead. Consequently, if Mizen was truthful, he was NEVER told that the woman could be an emergency at all.
So EXTREMELY basic. And so totally impossible to swallow.

Read the inquest reports before commenting on the errand, and form a durable ground to stand on.

And for Gods sake, David, learn from your mistake! Never, EVER, use the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" in the same sentence, for it will bring down the wrath of the selfproclaimed rigtheous (but rather daft) guardians of the carman upon your head.
You are not wrong, of course - and you really cannot be wrong on this errand, the way you worded it - but be kind to yourself and avoid upphill struggles like these. They will only make people think you are a closet Lechmerian, and you will begin to significantly use up whatever trust you have built.

Welcome to my world, David. Pretty, ain´t it?

The problematic word here is "intentionality".

[Fisherman]

Gentlemen, I really should visit Hallands Väderö more often.

Coming back, I find how David throws out the simple thruth that on the surface of things, Lechmere seems to have lied to Mizen - and he is immediately attacked from all directions by people who cannot see the simple truth of what he is saying.

He qualifies hios statement by saying - a thousand times - that he is NOT saying that Lechmere DID lie to Mizen, nor that he would himself in any way believe that the carman is more probable to have lied than not.

Does it help? No. He has combined the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" and that is something that one must not do out here, no matter what.

Posters flaunt their ignorance by stating "A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead", without taking any notice about the fact that Mizen never said that he was informed about how the woman could be dead. Consequently, if Mizen was truthful, he was NEVER told that the woman could be an emergency at all.
So EXTREMELY basic. And so totally impossible to swallow.

Read the inquest reports before commenting on the errand, and form a durable ground to stand on.

And for Gods sake, David, learn from your mistake! Never, EVER, use the two words "Lechmere" and "lied" in the same sentence, for it will bring down the wrath of the selfproclaimed rigtheous (but rather daft) guardians of the carman upon your head.
You are not wrong, of course - and you really cannot be wrong on this errand, the way you worded it - but be kind to yourself and avoid upphill struggles like these. They will only make people think you are a closet Lechmerian, and you will begin to significantly use up whatever trust you have built.

Welcome to my world, David. Pretty, ain´t it?

[David Orsam]

The British justice system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. but advocates of Cross the Ripper presume Cross guilty until proven innocent and make mountains out of molehills. Cross used a name that could easily be traced back to him. Big deal it indicates nothing.

That may be true about advocates of Cross as the Ripper, John, but why have you felt the need to make such a point in middle of this current debate which is simply about whether there is any suspicion attaching to anything that Cross did?

[John Wheat]

The British justice system is based on the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty. but advocates of Cross the Ripper presume Cross guilty until proven innocent and make mountains out of molehills. Cross used a name that could easily be traced back to him. Big deal it indicates nothing.

[John G]

Hello John G,

>>Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid that he would not have anticipated his evidence, to the effect that another police officer was already in attendance, wouldn't be challenged by Cross/Paul assuming it was an outrageous lie? Because, frankly, that's absurd.<<

Why do Xmereites always resort to absolutisms in debates?

Calico O. made no such suggestion, so why suggest it?

Try reversing the question, would Xmere insert himself into the investigation knowing full well a policeman and an independent witness would dispute his story.

Whilst neither scenario his can positively ruled out, neither seems particularly credible.


>>Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story! <<

I'm not sure why you would characterize Mizen making a perfectly understandable mistake in such terms as "incompetence" and "making up stories (lying)" I'll leave Calico O to reply definitively, but that's not what was written in his/her post.


>>Are you seriously suggesting that, if Mizen was informed that there was a woman lying dead, it seriously injured, and not made aware that another officer was already in attendance, then any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?<<

Again, if we take the drama out of your post and look at the actual information available, Xmere is reported as saying,

"There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

Or alternatively,

“Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."

Point one: Both these statements are in accordance we what both Xmere and Paul described seeing in Buck’s Row.

Point Two: Neither man described Mrs. Nichols as being “seriously injured”.


>>If you recognize that the newspaper accounts were inconsistent, then why do you argue that Cross should be believed over Mizen?<<

Whilst the newspapers are inconstant on some matters they are not inconsistent on these specific matters being currently debated.


>>PC Mizen was a serving police officer with an impeccable record. Cross, on the other hand, was a man discovered next to a woman who may have recently been murdered. Does that prove that Cross committed murder? No. But if you don't believe that, at the very least, the fact that his story was directly contradicted by Mizen isn't at least suspicious then I'm afraid I cannot help you.<<

All of which means if Xmere’s version was given preference then there should have been a reason behind it to do so.

I note that you have now elevated Mizen’s record to “impeccable”.
Could you share your sources for the upgrading?

Wasn't Sir Charles Warren was brought in as Commissioner of the Met. because a series of scandals, showed the force to have endemic corruption and policemen on the beat regularly accused of laziness in pursuing there duties?
Under such circumstances, for someone to be described as "impeccable" would require a some strong evidence to support it.

Well, for irony this post certainly takes the biscuit! Like a lot of posters you've become so obsessed with knocking down suspect theories that objectivity has gone completely out of the window.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that there's anything like conclusive evidence against Cross. The argument is simply that a suspicion is raised against Cross because his evidence, the evidence of a man found next to a dead body, is contradicted by a police officer, and one with an impeccable record.

However, you are seemingly so lacking in objectivity you even challenge this basic fact: if Mizen didn't have an impeccable record then he must have been subject to disciplinary action, which he wasn't. In fact, to the contrary, David has highlighted two occasions when he was commended for his police work. Frankly, your argument is almost Pierre- esque in its "logic".

And, just in case you're still struggling with the basic argument, let me provide you with an analogy. William Wallace, in a famous case, was accused of murdering his wife. There are a number of issues which raise suspicion against his behaviour, however, the case against him certainly was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt: in fact, if the evidence of at least one independent witness is to be accepted it would have been virtually impossible for him to have committed the crime. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) agreed and squashed his conviction for murder, i.e. on the grounds that no reasonable jury could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon the evidence before them.


And as for what Cross is supposed to have said to PC Mizen, this is also disputed by the officer: PC Mizen contender that he had simply been informed that that he was wanted in Bucks Row were there was a woman "lying." And, frankly, Cross' testimony at the inquest is so contrary, that in itself is enough to raise a further suspicion. I mean, he variously described the victim as being possibly "dead", "drunk", not "seriously injured", in a "swoon."

Nor does the evidence of Paul, such as it is, support your attempts to denigrate an officer with an impeccable record. Paul we are told simply went off to tell a police officer what he'd seen. Okay, well what he saw was a woman lying in the street. We are therefore certainly not entitled to assume thst he proceeded to regale PC Mizen with his amateur physician's/ forensic Psychologist's opinion that the woman was dead, or hardly breathing.

Finally, may I respectfully offer this piece of advice. Before you seek to patronize another poster with nonesense such as, "if we take the drama out of your post", it would be helpful if you could demonstrate that you have a far greater grasp of the basic facts than you have erstwhile demonstrated (it would also help if you desisted from applying Pierre-esque logic, with absurdities such as implying that PC Mizen might not have had an impeccable record, presumably because evidence might emerge, at presumably some indeterminate time in the future, that challenges the known facts!)

[David Orsam]

I know what suspicion means.I know what proof is.Starting with the premise that Cross told the truth,under oath,(I'm entitled to do that),I find there is no evidence that Cross lied,and wihout proof, no reason for suspicion that he did..

Starting with the premise that Cross told the truth is an utterly absurd way of carrying out a murder investigation in the face of contradictory evidence from a police officer. No wonder you are perversely refusing to accept that there is any possible suspicion against the man. You might as well say that on the basis that Cross is innocent you conclude that Cross is innocent!

[drstrange169]

Hello John G,

>>Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid that he would not have anticipated his evidence, to the effect that another police officer was already in attendance, wouldn't be challenged by Cross/Paul assuming it was an outrageous lie? Because, frankly, that's absurd.<<

Why do Xmereites always resort to absolutisms in debates?

Calico O. made no such suggestion, so why suggest it?

Try reversing the question, would Xmere insert himself into the investigation knowing full well a policeman and an independent witness would dispute his story.

Whilst neither scenario his can positively ruled out, neither seems particularly credible.


>>Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story! <<

I'm not sure why you would characterize Mizen making a perfectly understandable mistake in such terms as "incompetence" and "making up stories (lying)" I'll leave Calico O to reply definitively, but that's not what was written in his/her post.


>>Are you seriously suggesting that, if Mizen was informed that there was a woman lying dead, it seriously injured, and not made aware that another officer was already in attendance, then any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?<<

Again, if we take the drama out of your post and look at the actual information available, Xmere is reported as saying,

"There's a woman lying in Buck's-row. She looks to me as though she was dead, or drunk." The other man then said, "I believe she is dead."

Or alternatively,

“Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."

Point one: Both these statements are in accordance we what both Xmere and Paul described seeing in Buck’s Row.

Point Two: Neither man described Mrs. Nichols as being “seriously injured”.


>>If you recognize that the newspaper accounts were inconsistent, then why do you argue that Cross should be believed over Mizen?<<

Whilst the newspapers are inconstant on some matters they are not inconsistent on these specific matters being currently debated.


>>PC Mizen was a serving police officer with an impeccable record. Cross, on the other hand, was a man discovered next to a woman who may have recently been murdered. Does that prove that Cross committed murder? No. But if you don't believe that, at the very least, the fact that his story was directly contradicted by Mizen isn't at least suspicious then I'm afraid I cannot help you.<<

All of which means if Xmere’s version was given preference then there should have been a reason behind it to do so.

I note that you have now elevated Mizen’s record to “impeccable”.
Could you share your sources for the upgrading?

Wasn't Sir Charles Warren was brought in as Commissioner of the Met. because a series of scandals, showed the force to have endemic corruption and policemen on the beat regularly accused of laziness in pursuing there duties?
Under such circumstances, for someone to be described as "impeccable" would require a some strong evidence to support it.

[harry]

Thank you John. I'm sure I didn't appear confused to you.

I do not invent things.Ivé not accused anyone of anything without reason.I do not try to mislead.
I offer no apologies,none should be needed.

I know what suspicion means.I know what proof is.Starting with the premise that Cross told the truth,under oath,(I'm entitled to do that),I find there is no evidence that Cross lied,and wihout proof, no reason for suspicion that he did.
If my grammar,spelling,syntax,and method of presentation offends,bad luck,learn to live with it.Dont read it', don't respond,you have the option.

[David Orsam]

Cross is entitled to be free of suspicion of lying,unless evidence of lying proves otherwise.The onus is not on him to prove innocence.Mizen's statement does not prove Cross lied.I believe Cross.He had no motive to lie.His e vidence does not conflict with Paul ,the only other person who could give evidence of a policeman being or not being in Bucks Row when they left the body of Nichols.Cross testified under oath in a court of law.Neither the court or the police appear to suspect him of any wrong doing.Of course mine is an opinionWhat is not an opinion is that Cross should be considered innocent until proven guilty.There is no proof,either of lying or killing.If, maybe,possibly doesn't enter into it.

That is such a confused post, mixing up the concept of suspicion with the concept of proof. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the two. If you can only suspect someone of lying when you have proved they are lying, it renders that suspicion meaningless because you've already proved it!