Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;387350]

Wrong, Fisherman. There are no contemporary sources, the sources differ enormously and they are copies of copies of copies. The sources do NOT prove the existence of Jesus and they are very bad sources. Actually, they are worthless.

Well, then, letīs just say that it is commonly regarded as proven that Jesus has existed, but that Pierre disagrees.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

I wonīt delve into that again.

But you brought it up?

Yes, to exemplify how you work.

Anyway, I'm more than happy to chat about it when you are ready.

And I am happy to chat about it when you have something of relevance to point to.

Or the one about how Lechmere stood twenty yards away from the body - according to you.

Not according to me, I wasn't there. According to a Charles Allen Cross at the inquest.

Ehhhr - no. You cut out a passage along the lines of cutting away the "donīt" in "I donīt like fraudulent behavior", thus ending up with "I like fraudulent behavior". So much as you quoted Lechmere, you quoted a very selective few words, leaving out the context.
I am not any great fan of such antics. Frankly, I think it disqualifies anybody who does it from the discussion.

If you had admitted that it was wrong, it would have been another matter, but you have proudly stood by it ever since, and you must consequentially suffer the consequences of it. It is all very easy and basic.

... you seem less willing to discuss and explain that?

I'm happy to discuss anything. It seems to be you who is leaving an ever-lengthening list of subjects you won't discuss openly.

There are matters I am unwiling to discuss with you, yes - not because you would in any way have the upper hand in such a discussion, but because I have made experiences discussing with you that are anything but encouraging when you want a fair and factual discussion.


This thread has been polite and informative, the only person thus far to take an aggressive tone is yourself. If you want to continue to be rude and abusive feel free to fill my p.m.'s with abuse, otherwise, please adhere to the civil tone the rest of us are contributing in.

It is not rude to state the truth, Dusty. And I am stating the truth about you and your methods. It may feel uncomfortable for you, but as long as it is perfectly true, there is no rudeness at all involved.

Ripperology cannot have people creating a parallel truth by cutting quotes in half and leaving the context out, end of story. You either agree with me about that or you call it rude not to allow for such things.

It's not a big ask and I'm sure the others would appreciate it.

I am equally certain that they would not want any poster out here to tamper with the facts and evidence in a discussion. Plus I am sure that many posters would indeed come down rather harshly on anybody who resorted to such things, and they would agree with anybody pointing it out and criticizing it.

Having pointed this out, I am perfectly happy to end our exchange for this time.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=drstrange169;387317]

Neil's beat could well have taken him passed the spot where the trio met, as he walked up Baker's Row and down Thomas Street, so, yes the confusion could have been genuine.

Neil would not have covered the intersection of Bakers Row and Hanbury Street - his beat would have entailed the parts of Bakers Row and Thomas Street WEST of the Bucks Row entrance. So the police were left with Mizen only.

And even if there were TWO PC:s in Bakerīs Row, donīt you think that the investigation leaders would be able to put two and two together and understand that the PC spoken of was EITHER Neil or Mizen?

And if Neil denied having met any carmen, who remains as the PC spoken of? I mean, I am sometimes criticized for portraying the Victorian police as daft, but this exceeeds any effort of mine in that department.

And don't forget the sentence you edited out of your Daily News quote in post #23 (referring to Mizen),

"These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete."

If that is what the police truly believed, and that seems to be your contention, then there was huge confusion, heck, nearly a century and a half later everyone is still confused;-)

I am not confused, Dusty. Not in the least.

As for "editing out" the passage you mention, you know quite well that it is not I but you who edit out relevant parts of quotations. In this case, I have explained a hundred times that it is the part "to attract attention" that explains Mizens answer.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;387350]

Wrong, Fisherman. There are no contemporary sources, the sources differ enormously and they are copies of copies of copies. The sources do NOT prove the existence of Jesus and they are very bad sources. Actually, they are worthless.

As usual-Wrong Pierre
Along with the gospels, including Mark, written about 70 AD, well within the lifetime of Jesus contemporary eyewitnesses, there two possibly three non Christian independent sources: Josephus, who also mentions Jesus brother James, Tacitus, who notes the crucifiction under Pontius Pilate and Serapion, who mentions in a letter, the crucifiction of the "wise king of the jews".

The first two are indisputable, and do prove the existence of Jesus as a historical real person and none are "worthless".

You're ideas are worthless, as you continue to embarrass yourself on these boards.

[Bridewell]

So this is the one from Friday night Lloyds of London:

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

Columbo

So, according to the Lloyds interview, Nichols was already cold and had been (in his opinion) dead for quite some time when his attention was drawn to her by Lechmere.

I've read this before. Paul gives a pretty detailed description. I wonder what made Cross decide he needed to contact anyone? He's only mentioned in passing and not even by name. This has all been re-hashed over and over so I know it's old hat. I'm trying to wrap my head around why, as a suspect, Lechmere would come forward? More to investigate!

He wasn't a suspect at the time. His coming forward as a witness needs explanation only if he was the killer. If the Lloyds interview is accurate and the body was cold when Paul touched it, then either:

(a) it was also cold when Lechmere encountered it or
(b) as the killer, he remained with the body for a very long time.

Which of the two is the more likely is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I think Lechmere was put off by "Knock-em Up" Mizen and his blasé response to the whole thing. According to Mizen, the two men (Paul & Lechmere) told him only that the woman they had found was either drunk or dead. Of course if the "drunk" reference was Mizen's own invention it might serve to justify his lack of immediate response.

[GUT]

As usual-Wrong Pierre
Along with the gospels, including Mark, written about 70 AD, well within the lifetime of Jesus contemporary eyewitnesses, there two possibly three non Christian independent sources: Josephus, who also mentions Jesus brother James, Tacitus, who notes the crucifiction under Pontius Pilate and Serapion, who mentions in a letter, the crucifiction of the "wise king of the jews".

The first two are indisputable, and do prove the existence of Jesus as a historical real person and none are "worthless".

You're ideas are worthless, as you continue to embarrass yourself on these boards.

Great and accurate answer Abby, but our great (non) historian has long lost interest to me as he continues to display not only a total lack of knowledge about JTR but pretty much anything else he comments on.

Still not sure how he morphed from a sociologist to an historian, seems to have been about the time he realised that most here weren't terribly impressed by his claims to be a great sociologist, unfortunately he didn't realise that most here aren't really interested in anyone's degrees but rather in their displayed knowledge relevant to the case, and to a large degree the horse sense they display, two things Pierre shows a distinct lack of.

[Columbo]

So, according to the Lloyds interview, Nichols was already cold and had been (in his opinion) dead for quite some time when his attention was drawn to her by Lechmere.

He wasn't a suspect at the time. His coming forward as a witness needs explanation only if he was the killer. If the Lloyds interview is accurate and the body was cold when Paul touched it, then either:

(a) it was also cold when Lechmere encountered it or
(b) as the killer, he remained with the body for a very long time.

Nichols body temperature is a bone of contention with many of the anti-lechmere gang, and I can see why. Unfortunately it's one of those interpretation situations that I have no expertise in whatsoever and I don't even try to fathom a guess.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;387369]

As usual-Wrong Pierre
Along with the gospels, including Mark, written about 70 AD, well within the lifetime of Jesus contemporary eyewitnesses, there two possibly three non Christian independent sources: Josephus, who also mentions Jesus brother James, Tacitus, who notes the crucifiction under Pontius Pilate and Serapion, who mentions in a letter, the crucifiction of the "wise king of the jews".

The first two are indisputable, and do prove the existence of Jesus as a historical real person and none are "worthless".

You're ideas are worthless, as you continue to embarrass yourself on these boards.

Thanks Abby, I didn't know about Tacitus and Serapion. Learned something new and interesting today.

Columbo

[Columbo]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;387363]

Well, then, letīs just say that it is commonly regarded as proven that Jesus has existed, but that Pierre disagrees.

That works.

Columbo

[c.d.]

A very quick Google search will show that a number of Bible scholars consider the references to Jesus made by Josephus to be a forgery. As for Tacitus, some scholars believe that he is simply quoting information supplied to him and therefore it constitutes a second hand source.

It is also very questionable as to whether any of the new testament writers ever met Jesus.

The available evidence does not seem to be "worthless" nor unfortunately is it "indisputable." But even if we accept the historicity of Jesus the question of his divinity remains.

c.d.

[Columbo]

A very quick Google search will show that a number of Bible scholars consider the references to Jesus made by Josephus to be a forgery. As for Tacitus, some scholars believe that he is simply quoting information supplied to him and therefore it constitutes a second hand source.

It is also very questionable as to whether any of the new testament writers ever met Jesus.

The available evidence does not seem to be "worthless" nor unfortunately is it "indisputable." But even if we accept the historicity of Jesus the question of his divinity remains.

c.d.

Maybe so but I think we should put the Jesus comments to rest.

Columbo

[c.d.]

Maybe so but I think we should put the Jesus comments to rest.

Columbo

Agreed. I was just trying to set the record straight.

c.d.

[Billiou]

According to Mizen, the two men (Paul & Lechmere) told him only that the woman they had found was either drunk or dead. Of course if the "drunk" reference was Mizen's own invention it might serve to justify his lack of immediate response.

Well, no, because Cross himself stated that he himself said "I said to him [Mizen], "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead, or else drunk."

So Mizen did not make it up. In fact, Mizen said nothing about the woman being dead or drunk. Just that a woman had been found lying in Buck's Row. The drunk reference came only from Cross.

[Fisherman]

Maybe so but I think we should put the Jesus comments to rest.

Columbo

Indeed! What I was after was not primarily a discussion about his existence, but instead I wanted to point out how facts are establshed by having numerous independent sources mentioning the same detail. For example, since numerous independent sources tell us that Lechmere said that there was another PC awaiting Mizen in Bucks Row, we may treat it as an established fact that the carman actually said this.

I should have realized that you learned men would insteadtake the debate to divine heights...

[Fisherman]

Well, no, because Cross himself stated that he himself said "I said to him [Mizen], "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead, or else drunk."

So Mizen did not make it up. In fact, Mizen said nothing about the woman being dead or drunk. Just that a woman had been found lying in Buck's Row. The drunk reference came only from Cross.

Spot on, Billiou - and these matters are so, so important if one wants to realize the kind of case that can be built against the carman.
Specifically, what I think is of the utmost interest is that Mizen does not say anything at all about having been told that the woman was potentially dead - or dying. Meaning that if it was all played down very much by the carman, Mizen may well have felt that there was no real hurry at all; in a neigbourhood that was littered with drunkenbolts lying in the gutters, another such case would warrant little interest from the PC, save the fact that that another PC had actually requested his presence. That would point to something a bit more out of the ordinary, and Mizen duly responded to the request by going there, afterwards commenting on how the carman had said nothing about any murder or suicide.

If Lechmere was telling the truth, Mizen should have testified like this:
"There were these two carmen who approached me on that night, and they said that they themselves had found a woman lying in Bucks Row, who they believed was probably dead or dying, or possibly drunk. It was obvious that the errand was a pressing one and so I set off immediately. Although the carmen had been the finders, I decided to let them go without taking their names and addresses."

Instead we got these implications:
"There was this carman who approached me on that night, saying that a woman had been found lying in Bucks Row. He assured me that there was already another PC in place, and added that this PC had sent the carman and a friend of his on their way, asking them to fetch help. I naturally assumed that my colleague had been the finder of the woman, and had the errand firmly in hand. It was reassuring to hear that help was provided by him, but I nevertheless answered his call and made my way to Bucks Row."

If Lechmere was lying, can anybody think of a better and more effective bogus story to get past the police? I know I canīt.