Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

David Orsam,
Now you go back to my post 519 where I addressed to no one.You then replied against my post in post 531 using my name,so do not accuse me of starting the argument between us.Furthermore do not tell me how to post.You want to use quotes do so,I prefer not to.So i'll not argue against you .Anything I post can be taken as being of a general nature addressed to no one in particular.

What does your post #519 have to do with anything? Since then you've posted at #543 and #553, both posts addressed to me by name.

And where have I accused you of 'starting the argument between us'? I've done no such thing. Again, if you used the quote function that would be much clearer. If you don't want to use the quote function fine, but please don't then invent things that I'm supposed to have said.

[Harry D]

Cross testified under oath in a court of law.Neither the court or the police appear to suspect him of any wrong doing. .

Ohohoho, of course they didn't, because they only had mustache-twirling Jews on their radar and wouldn't suspect a working class Brit of anything. Or something like that.

[John Wheat]

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.

I agree 100% with you harry

Cheers John

[harry]

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.

[harry]

David Orsam,
Now you go back to my post 519 where I addressed to no one.You then replied against my post in post 531 using my name,so do not accuse me of starting the argument between us.Furthermore do not tell me how to post.You want to use quotes do so,I prefer not to.So i'll not argue against you .Anything I post can be taken as being of a general nature addressed to no one in particular.

[David Orsam]

Had Mizen done what he should have,that is recorded the conversation,then or at the earliest opportunity,that would have certainly been a point in his favour.As it is,it appears the evidence relies on memory.Is that enough to point the finger of suspicion at Cross?

The answer is clearly yes (although we don't need to use a dramatic phrase like "the finger of suspicion", as it's only one reason to be suspicious). Most evidence given in court relies on memory. Forget what you think Mizen should have done. The fact of the matter is that Lechmere's evidence conflicts with Mizen's. What the resolution of that conflict is I don't know but one possibility is that Lechmere lied and one possible reason for that lie is that he committed the murder. That does not mean that Lechmere did commit the murder or even that he did lie. It also does not mean that Lechmere probably did commit the murder or that he probably did lie. But you must admit that if you were a police officer in 1888 you would want to resolve the conflict of evidence and the reason you would want to do that is because that conflict of evidence is a reason to suspect Lechmere of committing the murder.

Perhaps the police did resolve the conflict in 1888 but we simply don't know and cannot just assume that they did. That is why I have continually said that there remains an element of suspicion against Lechmere but it really is no more than that so I don't understand your continued reluctance to accept this very simple point.

[David Orsam]

You say if Mizen's evidence is correct.That is the problem.You, nor I, nor anyone can prove it is,therefor it has no value in determining Cross's honesty.

But I'm not using Mizen's evidence to determine Cross's honesty.

You continue to argue against things I'm not saying.

I'm aware that no-one can prove whether Mizen's evidence is correct (or incorrect) which is why I say no more than that Mizen's evidence is a reason for suspicion against Cross. But it's not conclusive in any way.

[David Orsam]

Where do I say Mizen should be disbelieved?

It would be helpful if you use the quote function when responding to something I say because what I said was "In fact, it seems that you are the only one putting forward such an argument, if you are suggesting that Mizen should be disbelieved."

Note the words "seems" and "if". The reason I wrote that sentence was because you said: "my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed."

If you are arguing against a suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman then the natural conclusion is that you think he should be disbelieved. If not, then what are you saying? That he should be believed despite the fact he was a policeman?

[David Orsam]

David Orsan,
I did not say you made the suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman.I was putting my view w ithout naming a particular poster,as I usually do,and you choosed to respond using my name..Read my original post.

Your post#543, to which I was responding, was addressed to me, so it did name 'a particular poster". That post said, "my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed." I responded by saying "In which case (as I have suspected from the start) you are arguing against a suggestion that I haven't made."

Note that I did not accuse you of saying that I had made the suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman, only that you were arguing against a suggestion that I had not made. Therefore, why address your post to me?

[David Orsam]

And if Lechmere told the truth, Mizen lied

That is not correct GUT, as I've already explained in this thread, describing it as a false inversion.

If Lechmere told the truth, Mizen might have lied but he also might have been mistaken, either in what he heard or as to his recollection of what he heard.

[John G]

Hi, John G.

"There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead."
In an absolute and literal sense, that is correct. However, I have previously provided, within this thread, three articles; one of which is an interview with Paul and was conducted within a day or so of the murder and two of which report upon his testimony at the inquest proceedings. In each of these reportings, Paul makes it plainly understood that he believed the woman was deceased and that he then went on to inform the policeman about "what they had seen" or "and I told him what I had seen", on Bucks Row.
A sober and impartial reading of his testimony indicates distinctly that he is informing Mizen of the dead body.
Those sitting at the inquest, including the Coroner, clearly seemed to have no difficulty grasping the import of his words, or they should surely have enquired further of the witness for clarification.

"And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events?"
Such a question carries within it a mischaractersation of several things at once. Mizen gave his testimony ahead of both Cross and Paul. He frankly could not know as to whether his own recollection of events would differ, in some vital area, from the testimonies to be offered later by either of those witnesses. To indicate that he might be concerned with what Paul may speak to, in corroboration of Cross, appears to imply that, in some manner, Mizen was appraised of the likely direction that Cross's testimony would progress. I should be interested if you have any evidence for this. It further seems to suggest that somewhere, nestled within the newspaper articles and as yet undetected by others, there might be some implication that one or other person was willfully deceitful in their given testimony.

"Cross' testimony is also inconsistent, if not contradictory, which might, but not necessarily, suggest that he was trying to dig himself out of a very big hole."
This would be his testimony that was reported in the newspapers, the same of which, in the preceding paragraph, you characterised in this manner: "the newspaper articles are inconsistent"?

"But to have blithely ignored the possibility that a victim was lying down in the street, possibly close to death, would have been a serious dereliction of duty."
I agree; such unurgent behaviour would surely have demonstrated a grave negligence of his lawly obligations. If, indeed, events had occurred that way. But you are the one using the phrase 'blithely ignored'. I have offered nothing which might suggest Mizen was tardy in his response. You seem here to be arguing against an edifice that you yourself have constructed.

Yours, Caligo

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. 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 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?

And if your not suggesting that's what happened, what exactly are you suggesting? As for Paul, we do not know what he said at the inquest. I mean, for all we know Cross could have subsequently convinced him that the victim was, indeed, not seriously injured, which is what he seemed to believe. And Paul only states that he informed Mizen what he'd seen, not what he believed, I.e. he may have been unwilling to contradict Cross, if Cross had stated the woman was simply drunk, or in a swoon, and not seriously injured, and therefore simply briefly reported the basic facts: that he'd come across a woman lying down in the street.

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

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.

[harry]

David Orsan,
I did not say you made the suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman.I was putting my view w ithout naming a particular poster,as I usually do,and you choosed to respond using my name..Read my original post.
Where do I say Mizen should be disbelieved?.You say if Mizen's evidence is correct.That is the problem.You, nor I, nor anyone can prove it is,therefor it has no value in determining Cross's honesty.
Had Mizen done what he should have,that is recorded the conversation,then or at the earliest opportunity,that would have certainly been a point in his favour.As it is,it appears the evidence relies on memory.Is that enough to point the finger of suspicion at Cross?

[Columbo]

And if Lechmere told the truth, Mizen lied, I don't get in any way how that helps.

I've become a bit confused on that myself and I'm glad I don't have a dog in this fight.

Columbo

[Columbo]

That's absolutely right. One can infer away to one's heart's content. And one can put forward arguments that Lechmere was entirely innocent.

All I've ever been saying is that there is some evidence on the surface, at a superficial level if you like, that Lechmere told a lie. That doesn't mean he definitely, or even probably, did tell a lie nor that if he did tell a lie he was the murderer. There are all kinds of arguments for and against and I've been trying to ignore those in this thread because that debate doesn't relate to the simple (and undeniable) point I've been making about one element of suspicion.

Good point as well. I've enjoyed your posts on this thread.

Columbo

[GUT]

And if Lechmere told the truth, Mizen lied, I don't get in any way how that helps.