Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

>> On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.<<

Which begs the question, why would the police take Xmere's word over one of their own, and an apparently a well regarded one of their own?

One of the things Xmerites have been very successful at, is deflecting people attention away from the facts.

This isn't a case of Xmere v Mizen.

There was a third party there, Robert Paul and Paul's court testimony and press interview mention nothing about another policeman wanting assistance.

Both Mizen and Xmere acknowledge that Paul was present during their conversation. Paul himself claims he was questioned all night about the incident.

Surely if there was any kind of doubt or discrepancies between Paul and Xmere's stories the police would have given Mizen "the benefit of the doubt"?

Did they take Lechmere's word over PC Mizen's? Where's the evidence for this?

[John G]

Interestingly the original default position on this point was that Mizen was such a good cop he must have taken the men's names down when they spoke to him – which was why poor innocent Charlie Cross gave a false name – it was just a spur of the moment decision. He was panicked about the gangs etc.

If anyone had suggested that Mizen had done anything wrong and not taken the men names there would be uproar from the 'don't think' brigade.

If you read Fish's article – even he unquestionably followed the ( at the time) standard version - Mizen took the men's names.

Why would he necessarily take the men's names? According to his evidence he was merely told that there was a woman "lying there". Now I would of thought that he might sensibly interpret that information as the woman was merely drunk, which presumably was a common occurrence. Moreover, if he did fail to follow proper procedure in these circumstances why wasn't he disciplined? I'm afraid that, once again, this is a case of the word of a sworn police officer against that of a man found with a dead body.

It's also worth pointing out that Lechmere stated in evidence that he hadn't noticed any injuries due to the poor lighting conditions. In fact, according to the Daily Telegraph, he told the inquest: " In his opinion deceased looked as though she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea there were any serious injuries." (Daily Telegraph, 1st September, 1888)

[harry]

Mr Lucky,
Cross was never a suspect in the Nichols murder.
A person does not have to be arrested before being thought a suspect.
The murder of Nichols was a common law crime in England..Under that law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.There was no guilt established against Cross.Now you explain where I am wrong about that law, about Cross,and where I have mislead anyone,and I am talking about 1888.

[Columbo]

Post of the Year.

In Hell.

Yep, it's finally sunk to a new level.



Columbo

[Columbo]

>> On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.<<

Which begs the question, why would the police take Xmere's word over one of their own, and an apparently a well regarded one of their own?

One of the things Xmerites have been very successful at, is deflecting people attention away from the facts.

This isn't a case of Xmere v Mizen.

There was a third party there, Robert Paul and Paul's court testimony and press interview mention nothing about another policeman wanting assistance.

Both Mizen and Xmere acknowledge that Paul was present during their conversation. Paul himself claims he was questioned all night about the incident.

Surely if there was any kind of doubt or discrepancies between Paul and Xmere's stories the police would have given Mizen "the benefit of the doubt"?

Well if Paul was questioned all night as you say, then is it fair to say Lechmere was questioned just as rigorously?

Columbo

[GUT]

Mizen mizheard. How about that. Which night was Paul questioned? Did he reach his place of work.

Or even didn't hear but assumed.

So common.

[MysterySinger]

Mizen mizheard. How about that. Which night was Paul questioned? Did he reach his place of work.

[drstrange169]

>> On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.<<

Which begs the question, why would the police take Xmere's word over one of their own, and an apparently a well regarded one of their own?

One of the things Xmerites have been very successful at, is deflecting people attention away from the facts.

This isn't a case of Xmere v Mizen.

There was a third party there, Robert Paul and Paul's court testimony and press interview mention nothing about another policeman wanting assistance.

Both Mizen and Xmere acknowledge that Paul was present during their conversation. Paul himself claims he was questioned all night about the incident.

Surely if there was any kind of doubt or discrepancies between Paul and Xmere's stories the police would have given Mizen "the benefit of the doubt"?

[Abby Normal]

Hitler was a well thought of Führer by many.

Regards, Pierre

Post of the Year.

In Hell.

[Errata]

There is actually a paper floating around out there somewhere on people's reactions upon finding a dead body. And it's not as interesting a read as you might think, but it is sort of an interesting look at how it not only a frightening experience, but apparently a temporary mind blowing experience, disrupting sensory input, memory, speech, executive function.... as well as potentially causing an existential crisis. I'll comb through my college papers and see if I can find it.

Point is people often arent right after finding a body, and are operating what is best referred to as auto pilot while their mind is sort of consumed with what they just saw. So imagine how consumed you might be with having to tell the kids their grandpa died, but in the meantime you have o go to the grocery store. God only knows what you will buy because you are distracted. Same principle. Plus, there is something called the replaced subject slip (I think) where if you are staring at topless woman and are one the phone with someone you might say "And get the breasts out of the oven" instead of "And get the turkey out of the oven" because you've replaced the subject with what you are staring at. So a distressed man might say " a policeman needs you" while staring at a policeman instead of "I need a policeman." Super common verbal gaffe.

For all I know Lechmere totally did it. Not really my thing. But it is worth allowing for the idea that a man under perfectly understandable stress behaved like a man under perfectly understandable stress. Even if you don't want to just assume that, at least allow it I think. Which doesn't clear him of guilt at all I suppose, but does mean that he might not have lied so much as just sort of had a communications failure.

And to be honest, it is also extremely common for people to rewrite events after a stressful event, so Mizner could have rearranged words in his memory, led to do so by the presence of a cop at his destination. There is a whole lot on why we sometimes say things we don't mean, or remember things that didn't happen. We had some research, but the Satanic Panic in the 80s really drove a lot of research in the 90s. It's fascinating. And possibly relevant to these events. The moral of the story is that it happens, for good reasons, and this is an event that could create such reasons, so it's a possibility. It's not about lying, or covering up. It's just about how our brains work after shock. This exchange does not strike me as suspicious. Nor does it strike me as proof on innocence. It just strikes me as fairly normal.

[Mr Lucky]

Thanks for this, David. This clearly illustrates that PC Mizen was a very well-thought of police officer, and I therefore see no reason why it should be assumed he lied, whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.

Interestingly the original default position on this point was that Mizen was such a good cop he must have taken the men's names down when they spoke to him – which was why poor innocent Charlie Cross gave a false name – it was just a spur of the moment decision. He was panicked about the gangs etc.

If anyone had suggested that Mizen had done anything wrong and not taken the men names there would be uproar from the 'don't think' brigade.

If you read Fish's article – even he unquestionably followed the ( at the time) standard version - Mizen took the men's names.

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky.
Re your post 403,What have I made up?

“He cannot,under English law,be considered a suspect,and he never was.”

It's not only made up, but wrong and grossly misleading. Being considered a suspect (ie, a presumption based on suspicion) has nothing to do with it – a suspect is a term used in connection with arrest, not culpability. Try and understand what 'actus reas' means regarding a homicide with violence like the Nichols case.

[Mr Lucky]

I'm not saying that Nichols wasn't dead. I'm saying that Mizen referencing blood flowing from a throat wound would not have assisted the jury in determining whether she was dead or not.

As you say, the jury already had the evidence of both Dr Llewellyn and Neil and would already have known that Nichols was dead when Mizen arrived. So I'm suggesting there might have been another reason for Mizen giving evidence about the blood.

The jury (or anyone) may draw other conclusions about the evidence, and the blood at the scene had been under some scrutiny right from the start. I would suggest that if the case reached trial there would be considerably more evidence given about the blood than that used at the Inquest – and I bet we would know exactly when Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene to the minute.

[Mr Lucky]

To cut to the chase, that is the exact point that I am challenging. Nothing that Mizen said would have helped the jury to establish whether Nichols was dead or alive when he arrived on the scene.

That's correct, he is not establishing anything, Mizen is giving corroborative evidence not revealing new information.

And, in any event, Neil had already given evidence about the blood he saw when he arrived on the scene (before Mizen) so Mizen, who was not a doctor, could have added nothing.

They don't want Mizen to add anything, they want the evidence to corroborate.

[David Orsam]

No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied.

Do you even bother to read the posts you are replying to Pierre?

Here's what I said (with some bold highlighting added for you):

'But this conflict of evidence which, if Mizen is correct, means that Lechmere lied, must surely be a reason to at least classify Lechmere as a subject or if you prefer, as someone worthy of a closer look'.

Your reply was "No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied".

Well, Pierre, you are self-evidently wrong because if Mizen is correct then Lechmere lied. Or perhaps you can show me how Mizen is correct (and Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row) but Lechmere was telling the truth.

If you can't do it then perhaps you will so good as to modify your post to "Yes David you are right, it does mean that Lechmere lied".