Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

OK. If you actually do not understand the example, here is another one: John Wayne Gacy was well thought of by many. And so was probably the police officer and serial killer Mikhail Popkov.

Is there any evidence that PC Mizen was a serial killer? Do you believe he may have been JtR?

I'm not saying PC Mizen could not have lied, simply that there is no reason to suppose he did. And, as I've noted several times now, it's ultimately the word of a sworn police officer, with an unblemished recorded, against that of a man discovered with a victim who, according to Paul, may still have been alive.

[Pierre]

I'm not sure of the analogy you're trying to make. Do you, for instance, believe that PC Mizen thought that the British Empire should expand eastwards at the expense of the Russian Empire? Or that he had plans for world domination? And why would that be relevant to the present discussion?

The simple fact is that there is nothing to suggest that PC Mizen was anything other than a diligent police officer. If you believe he wasn't then I suggest you provide supporting evidence, i.e. from relevant source material.

OK. If you actually do not understand the example, here is another one: John Wayne Gacy was well thought of by many. And so was probably the police officer and serial killer Mikhail Popkov.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388336]

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.

No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied. You must allow the sources to kick back. If you find sources with other types of narratives and wordings, those must be considered if they are good sources.

There is a very good possibility that both Mizen and Lechmere thought that they told the truth.

Telling the truth is NOT what is at stake here, but thinking that they did, since they were sworn.

People do often say things they believe to be true, which are not. You and me are examples of that, David.

So we must go to the sources. And what are the problems here?

1. We do not have the original sources.
2. The newspapers copy eachother.
3. We cannot decide upon which exact wording in the papers is the "correct" one (a correct copy of the original inquest testimonies) by counting articles having the same phraseology, since newspapers copied eachother.
4. Therefore we must find out which articles are the most likely to be the most accurate.
5. Closeness in time, dialogue and as few errors as possible is what we look for.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hitler was a well thought of Führer by many.

Regards, Pierre

I'm not sure of the analogy you're trying to make. Do you, for instance, believe that PC Mizen thought that the British Empire should expand eastwards at the expense of the Russian Empire? Or that he had plans for world domination? And why would that be relevant to the present discussion?

The simple fact is that there is nothing to suggest that PC Mizen was anything other than a diligent police officer. If you believe he wasn't then I suggest you provide supporting evidence, i.e. from relevant source material.

[Pierre]

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.

Hitler was a well thought of Führer by many.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Not sure what you're pretending not to understand; we seem to have gone full circle. If you really don't understand why blood flowing from Nichols throat means she is dead then you do need to read Dr Llewellyn's testmony.

Don´t worry, Mr Lucky. That sort of arguments are typical in David World.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

So was PC Thain, but he denied telling the slaughtermen about the murder.

What Thain did or did not say is irrelevant but I think you'll find that what Thain denied is the accusation that he went to speak to the slaughtermen before going to fetch the doctor (i.e. he didn't deny speaking to them at all). And I don't think he was lying about that.

[John G]

Of course, the first person to find the body needs to be checked out. I see no other reason to suspect Lechmere beyond this fact.



So was PC Thain, but he denied telling the slaughtermen about the murder. Don't assume policemen are whiter than white and wouldn't cover their asses if the need arose. And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that Mizen lied, just that it's one man's word against another.

Yes, of course a police officer might lie. However, PC Mizen was an officer with an unblemished record. On the other hand, Lechmere was found with a victim, who according to Paul's evidence might, at that stage, have still been alive, i.e. he stated that he thought she might still be breathing.

He may have been mistaken, however, it means at the very least that Lechmere cannot be completely disregarded as a suspect.

[David Orsam]

Of course, the first person to find the body needs to be checked out. I see no other reason to suspect Lechmere beyond this fact.

Well it's an undisputed fact that Mizen testified that Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman and Lechmere denied saying it So there is, at the very least, a conflict of evidence. I really don't know how you have managed to resolve this conflict of evidence in Lechmere's favour. As far as I can tell, you appear to have assumed that because Lechmere wasn't arrested he was cleared by the police but that's a rather big assumption.

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.

If you don't agree with that, it seems we are not going to get any further on this issue.

[Harry D]

I don't think you understand the nature of what makes a person a suspect in a murder inquiry. Simply finding the body on its own will make someone a suspect in most cases, and they will need to be eliminated from the inquiry.

Of course, the first person to find the body needs to be checked out. I see no other reason to suspect Lechmere beyond this fact.

PC Mizen was a sworn officer of the law with, as far as I know, an unblemished record. Lechmere, on the other hand, was a man found with a dead body. I would therefore have thought that greater weight should be given to the police officer's version of events, particularly as Lechmere had a possible motive for lying, whereas PC Mizen didn't.

This, of course, doesn't mean that Lechmere necessarily lied, or that he murdered Polly Nichols.

So was PC Thain, but he denied telling the slaughtermen about the murder. Don't assume policemen are whiter than white and wouldn't cover their asses if the need arose. And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that Mizen lied, just that it's one man's word against another.

[David Orsam]

whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.

He was certainly standing near a dead body when Paul entered Bucks Row.

[John G]

As to his record, I recently happened to note a couple of entries for PC 55 Mizen in Police Orders from 1885.

21 May 1885 - Mizen (and two others in H Division) commended by Judge and Jury at the Central Criminal Court for tact and ability in apprehending and bringing to justice a man for making counterfeit coin.

9 June 1885 - Mizen (and one other constable) recommended for a reward for apprehension of property after a warehouse break-in.

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.

[David Orsam]

PC Mizen was a sworn officer of the law with, as far as I know, an unblemished record.

As to his record, I recently happened to note a couple of entries for PC 55 Mizen in Police Orders from 1885.

21 May 1885 - Mizen (and two others in H Division) commended by Judge and Jury at the Central Criminal Court for tact and ability in apprehending and bringing to justice a man for making counterfeit coin.

9 June 1885 - Mizen (and one other constable) recommended for a reward for apprehension of property after a warehouse break-in.

[John G]

I'm with David on this one.
On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.

and first one to find the body is defacto going to be at the very least-a person of interest.

Totally agree with you there, Abby. In fact, that's surely just common sense.

[John G]

PC Mizen was a sworn officer of the law with, as far as I know, an unblemished record. Lechmere, on the other hand, was a man found with a dead body. I would therefore have thought that greater weight should be given to the police officer's version of events, particularly as Lechmere had a possible motive for lying, whereas PC Mizen didn't.

This, of course, doesn't mean that Lechmere necessarily lied, or that he murdered Polly Nichols.