Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere Continuation Thread

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by John G View Post
    If Lechmere murdered Nichols why do you say his lie, in this context, would be meaningless?
    Because while the act of lying would not be meaningless, the actual misinformation contained in the lie really is. I mean, what is the point of saying "a cop needs you there" (obvious paraphrase) when no cop needs him there? Is a dead body insufficient reason for this cop to go check it out, but the request of another officer makes a difference? So it's an odd lie. One that doesn't do anything for the potential killer. It doesn't help the killer. It doesn't hurt the cops. It's just an odd lie.

    So because the initial lie is insignificant, the subsequent lie is also pretty insignificant. Lying to cove up a previous lie is suspicious, but also totally normal. Something he could get out of easily with one of a dozen explanations. So again, an odd lie. He could have copped to saying it and explained it away, he didn't. He lied about not saying it. So again, we are left with an act that is significant, lying, but content that is kind of rubbish.

    It raises no red flags for me, honestly. I'm still of the opinion that people are weird, and they sometimes do inexplicable generally harmless things five times a day. So thats me.

    But as far as content goes, it really is a meaningless lie.
    The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    Comment


    • Hi, all.

      Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
      The precise wording need not be important. Such phrasing might easily introduce to P.C. Mizen the impression that a policeman had sent Lechmere and Co. to find assistance. Subsequently discovering P.C. Neil already at the scene would tend to confirm that impression. This would then lead to him offering the testimony he did at the inquest.
      For Lechmere, he would know in his mind that he had never been sent by a policeman and that he had never stated as such. He may well not have considered it important to clear up any apparent misunderstanding regarding the matter.
      Clearly, however, a sharp-minded Juryman noticed the discrepancy in the testimony, but Cross's answer seems to have ended the matter to the satisfaction of those in charge of the inquest, as the matter was not visited again.

      Your, Caligo
      "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
        Hi, all.

        Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
        The precise wording need not be important. Such phrasing might easily introduce to P.C. Mizen the impression that a policeman had sent Lechmere and Co. to find assistance. Subsequently discovering P.C. Neil already at the scene would tend to confirm that impression. This would then lead to him offering the testimony he did at the inquest.
        For Lechmere, he would know in his mind that he had never been sent by a policeman and that he had never stated as such. He may well not have considered it important to clear up any apparent misunderstanding regarding the matter.
        Clearly, however, a sharp-minded Juryman noticed the discrepancy in the testimony, but Cross's answer seems to have ended the matter to the satisfaction of those in charge of the inquest, as the matter was not visited again.

        Your, Caligo
        Even "your wanted in Bucks row" and when he gets there Miz finds another copper, what does his brain translate Cross' words with in hindsight.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • Hi, Pierre.

          You asked in #468 " 10. What is the evidence that there was not an unknown policeman beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?

          If you have posted regarding this already and I have missed it, then I apologise.

          You appear, in the asking of this question, to be making the suggestion that there is an unaccounted constable involved in some manner. Is it your proposal that this is the policeman that gave Lechmere and Paul an errand and thus sent them away from the scene?
          Further to this, are you offering that the killer may have been either a policeman or had adopted clothing sufficient as to make himself appear such?

          Yours, Caligo
          Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 07-19-2016, 05:23 PM. Reason: punctuation
          "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

          Comment


          • >>No it isn't. Where's the evidence that Paul corroborated Lechmere's account?<<

            “They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen

            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.”

            The Times
            dustymiller
            aka drstrange


            "Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
            Fisherman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
              On the face of it he may have lied, but it is not a fact that he lied.
              Have you misunderstood the argument too Columbo? I can't for one moment understand why you felt the need to say that. No-one is saying that it is "a fact" he lied. But if Mizen's evidence is correct he did lie.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
                Let's not forget this is a newspaper discrepancy, not an official inquest discrepancy. Argue people might on the accuracy of the reporting, but it's still not the official record.
                That's weak. There's no reason to distrust the various newspaper reports on this point. Further, it's obvious that Mizen's evidence was correctly reported because Cross was specifically asked whether he mentioned a policeman to him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Errata View Post
                  B I mean, what is the point of saying "a cop needs you there" (obvious paraphrase) when no cop needs him there?
                  Well he is concealing from Mizen the fact that he found the body and that he (and Paul) have left a woman, unattended, lying on the street. Had Mizen known this he might have asked Cross and Paul to accompany him to where the body was lying. If Cross is the murderer then he is carrying a knife and might be discovered if the police decide to search him. If he is caught he is hung.

                  Is that meaningful enough for you?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
                    Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
                    In which case, Mizen's evidence is not correct.

                    The premise of my argument is that Mizen's evidence is correct.

                    And if Mizen's evidence is correct then Lechmere was lying.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GUT View Post
                      Even "your wanted in Bucks row" and when he gets there Miz finds another copper, what does his brain translate Cross' words with in hindsight.
                      In which case, I have to repeat, Mizen's evidence is not correct.

                      The premise of my argument is that Mizen's evidence is correct.

                      Comment


                      • Hi, David.

                        If one were to accept that Mizen's statements at the inquest described only the pure and absolute truth as to the circumstances by which he was furnished the information regarding the existence of a body lying in Bucks Row, then one might indeed allow that the conflict between his and Cross's testimony can be resolved only by the acceptance that the narrative offered by Cross is unsound and that, in the context of your question and that evidence, Cross lied.
                        Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 07-20-2016, 12:04 AM. Reason: spelling correction.
                        "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
                          Hi, David.

                          If one were to accept that Mizen's statements at the inquest described only the pure and absolute truth as to the circumstances by which he was furnished the information regarding the existence of a body lying in Bucks Row, then one might indeed allow that the conflict between his and Cross's testimony can be resolved only by the acceptance that the narrative offered by Cross is unsound and that, in the context of your question and that evidence, Cross lied.
                          In other words, if Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross lied.

                          Comment


                          • Hi, David.

                            Such a summation would be a fair condensing of my reply.
                            It does not reflect my position in regard to the exactness of the personal recollections of that morning's events as presented by the witnesses at the inquest.
                            If we were to consider that the statements offered by Cross matched the truth then what might we think of the testimony given by Mizen?

                            If Cross told the truth, then did Mizen necessarily lie?
                            Last edited by Caligo Umbrator; 07-20-2016, 12:32 AM.
                            "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Caligo Umbrator View Post
                              If Cross told the truth, then did Mizen necessarily lie?
                              No, that would be a false inversion.

                              If Cross told the truth, then Mizen could have lied but he also could have been mistaken as to his recollection or his understanding at the time of what he was being told.

                              If Mizen told the truth, or rather, his evidence was correct, then Cross must have lied. That is because Mizen's evidence was about what Cross said to him whereas Cross's evidence was about what he said to Mizen (about which Mizen could only speak of his understanding and recollection).

                              Comment


                              • Hi, David.

                                I am comfortable enough with the terms 'deductive fallacy' and 'inverse error'. I do, however, find myself to be somewhat embarrassed by my unfamiliarity with the phrase 'false inversion'. Perhaps you might be so good as to explain.
                                You should note that I provided a question and a qualifier, rather than an absolute statement.
                                As you yourself have indicated in your reply, Mizen's evidence was his recollection of what Cross said to him, rather than an exact reproduction. Regardless of logical arguments, why should Cross's testimony not be afforded the same latitude in terms of recall versus precise duplication?

                                Yours, Caligo
                                "I know why the sun never sets on the British Empire: God wouldn't trust an Englishman in the dark."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X