Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

Whoops!

Re: post 733, the last line should, of course, read,

"That he testified that he did NOT continue knocking up is a reported fact."

[harry]

Dave,
I do not think now there is any disagreement between us.

Fisherman,
Neither Cross nor Paul speaks of a crime having being committed.Only of a woman who appeared to be dead,or drunk,and in distress..Cross did seek aid from Paul,He w aited on Paul's arrival and accosted him.Their responsibility ended on meeting Mizen.Both,on knowing it was a crime ,came forward and gave evidence under oath.Appears innocent behaviour to me.Nothing odd or suspicious.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations. Thus, if he was the killer we might hypothesize that he would be desperate not to be closely scrutinized by Mizen, i.e. in respect of questioning, or regarding his clothing, which may have been blood stained. And, of course, he might still have the murder weapon in his possession. Moreover, he wouldn't have wanted Mizen to converse with Paul for too long, particularly as his account might differ fundamentally from his own, such as whether Nichols was seriously injured.

Informing Mizen that another PC was already in attendance, and wanted to see him, would have the advantage of giving the officer the clear impression that another constable had already questioned him [Cross] and was satisfied with his account-as well as diverting Mizen's attention by encouraging him to depart for Bucks Row, where he was apparently wanted by the other officer. Of course, if Mizen's account is correct he also played down the incident, by merely stating that "a woman had been found there" [Bucks Row], not mentioning that she might be dead or seriously injured, which would have given Mizen no reason to detain him for further questioning anyway.

Of course, in retrospect such a strategy might be regarded as risky-because Mizen would certainly contradict his account at the inquest-but with Paul alongside him he obviously had no alternative but to speak to the officer and, in this regard, his options were limited. Of course, subsequently he could simply argue that Mizen must have misunderstood him.

He would also be absolutely certain that Paul would corroborate his own stance that there had been no other PC in Bucks Row. That is where the question ended up: Was there another PC in Bucks Row or not?

Of course, it should have ended up: Did the carman tell Mizen that there was another PC in Bucks Row or not?

That is the impressive thing about this ruse (if indeed it was a ruse, something I myself am convinced about): The carman made it look as if he had one view and Mizen another about whether there was an extra PC. Of course, if Lechmere lied, then BOTH versions of the answer were his only.

[Fisherman]

>>Dear me. That is a totally unsubstainable and rather shocking statement.<<

One of the advantages of being honest is I don't need to keep making things up.

That Mizen's testimony was confusing is a reported fact.
That Baxter had to qualify it, is a reported fact.
That Mizen said he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.
That he testified that he did continue knocking up is a reported fact.

Next.

Here you go changing goalposts again. You NOW say that Mizens testimony was "confusing", but you leave out that it was only so in combination with the carmans ditto.

And of course, this was not what you said in your original post. Not at all, in fact, sonce in that one, you wrote: "Reading the reports there is little doubt that Mizen was not an accurate witness."

In other words, you lead on that Mizen was either lying or mistaken, most likely the first alternative.

That is another thing altogether from delivering a testimony that differed from another mans words on the same subject. And in all honesty, since Mizen testified forst, it was Lechmere who caused the confusion, mot Jonas Mizen.

You say "That Mizen said he did continue knocking up is a reported fact" and that "That he testified that he did continue knocking up is a reported fact", and as far as I can tell, these two sentences tell the exact same story.

At the end of the day, it matters not which version you prefer, since knocking up was part of his duties, and since he did nothing wrong by finishing his ongoing errand. It may have taken all of three seconds, we donīt know. But we DO know that it was a duty of his and that he was not reprimanded for it, so if you want to pass it off as a negligence on Mizens behalf, then think again.

Maybe that "again" is superfluos, though.

"Not an accurate witness", balderdash.

[Fisherman]

>Thatīs some interesting dribbling there. But letīs go with the basics, your post:<<

Yes let's do.

Basic re: point one -"initiated"

Presumably you did look it up as you've dropped all mention of it.

Basic re: point two - That I wrote Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were the first to find the body.

No where in the sentence you underlined did I write that Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were first to find the body.

Indisputable fact.

I see now you're trying to distancing your self from your original post and are now trying to claim I implied it instead.

One has to wonder, if The Xmere case is so strong, why you need to keep falsifying things?

I do not falsify things, but you reoccruringly seem to lack the ability to grasp both what you yourself say and what I say. I will therefore once again remind you what you said, and what this issue is actually about:

"Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body"

That is where you stepped in it, since there is no way that could have happened. I asked you to explain how such a thing could have gone down. Typically, I received no answer.

No, go wash your mouth with soap, please. And answer my question instead of conjuring up something that was never under discussion. Please?

[Fisherman]

And then there is Mizen's rather odd answer in the Star,
"He did not say anything about murder or suicide."

Why didn't he just say, "he did not say anything about her being dead."?
His answer seems to imply he knew she might be dead , but didn't know she had been potentially murdered or committed suicide.

He knew at the inquest that the woman had had her neck cut and her abdomen ripped. You DO realize this?

He therefore would have been amazed that a carman who had been approached by a (fake) police who had found the body did not know anything about that at all.

Consequentially, he must have asked himself why his colleague kept the murder/suicide under wraps when sending the carman to look for him. The logical thing to do would be to say "Good Lord, this woman has had her neck cut. Run at one and find me some assistance!"

But not in your parallel universe. There, Mizens consternation was "rather odd".

[Fisherman]

>>When Lechmere heard footsteps coming down the street, his fight-or-flight response didn't kick in, when he could've fled the scene but instead he brazened it out like a stone-cold sociopath and duped Paul. <<

Christer is very fond of quoting his "experts" but, one quote his not so fond of repeating is that Andy Griffiths thought their was nothing odd about Xmere's behaviour in his encounter with Paul.

Then how do you know that this was so?

Does he say so in the docu? Nope.

So exactly why do you know this? Iīll tell you why: because somebody TOLD you about it.

Guess who that somebody was?

You really should not dig these holes for yourself. Blind as you are, there is every risk you will end up in one.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Neither Cross nor Paul speaks of a crime having being committed.Only of a woman who appeared to be dead,or drunk,and in distress..Cross did seek aid from Paul,He w aited on Paul's arrival and accosted him.Their responsibility ended on meeting Mizen.Both,on knowing it was a crime ,came forward and gave evidence under oath.Appears innocent behaviour to me.Nothing odd or suspicious.

If you think that Mizen was told that the woman was either dead, drunk or in distress, then you have chosen Lechmeres version over a serving PC:s. For HE only says he was told that the woman as lying in the street. Not a word about having been told that it could be a question of death.

And to you, that discrepancy is "nothing odd or suspicious".

No ****, Sherlock.

[Fisherman]

Whoops!

Re: post 733, the last line should, of course, read,

"That he testified that he did NOT continue knocking up is a reported fact."

Ah, just saw this one. And I would not want to criticize you for something you did not mean. We all make errors.

Hereīs an example: Mizen could not have BOTH denied that he continued knocking up people and stated that he DID continue to knock people up. The reasonable solution to this enigma you perceive is that he was asked:
-Did you continue knocking people up after having spoken to carman Cross?
whereupon he answered
-No, I did not. I only finished the errand I had started, and then I immediately set off for Bucks Row.

And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol. This is further strengthened by how he was never reprimanded in any shape or form.

Of course, we need to consider that there were TWO versions of what he was told, Lechmeres version and Mizens own.

If Lechmere was telling the truth, then Mizen was told "Officer, we just found a woman lying in Bucks Row, and we believe that she is probably dead or dying!". In such a case, it would be reasonable to suggest that Mizen should set off double quick, and perhaps skip the finishing of the knocking up errand.

But if Mizen was telling the truth, then he was only told that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row, and that there was already a PC attending to the errand. In such a case, it would be very understandable if he finished the ongoing errand before he set off to assist his colleague with what seemed to be a very trivial errand. We should also ask ourselves how long time it would take to finish the ongoing errand - presumably, Mizen had knocked on the door or window and only awaited a response, something that may have been over in three seconds flat.

Jonas Mizen may therefore have acted totaly diligently and quickly, tending to exactly the matters he was supposed to tend to. My guess is that this is a fair description of the matter.

[harry]

What was said of course is a matter of belief,from information that has been handed down.
Whatever,why would they go looking for a policeman unless they(Cross and Paul)felt one was needed?And it's Shylock not Sherlock.

[John G]

>>Perhaps. However, people don't always act logically in stressful situations. <<

As Christer noted in post 723, he thinks Xmere wasn't stressed. If that's true he could have avoided the need to lie to Mizen, infact he could have avoided Mizen alltogether.


"Thus, if he was the killer we might hypothesize that he would be desperate not to be closely scrutinized by Mizen, i.e. in respect of questioning, or regarding his clothing, which may have been blood stained. And, of course, he might still have the murder weapon in his possession. Moreover, he wouldn't have wanted Mizen to converse with Paul for too long, particularly as his account might differ fundamentally from his own, such as whether Nichols was seriously injured."

If Xmere was desperate enough to avoid all of the above, all he had to do, when he was in Buck's Row, was to say to Paul, "You look for a copper that way, Ill go and see if I can get one the other way."

If Xmere was a cold and calculating killer who wanted to involve himself in the investigation, he then have hidden the knife, found Thain and Bingo!

Or he could have then simply disappeared into the night.



>>... if Mizen's account is correct he also played down the incident, by merely stating that "a woman had been found there" [Bucks Row], not mentioning that she might be dead or seriously injured ...<<

The problem with this is Paul specifically said in his Lloyds interview that Mizen was told Paul thought she was dead. Xmere stated the same thing under oath at the inquest.

And then there is Mizen's rather odd answer in the Star,
"He did not say anything about murder or suicide."

Why didn't he just say, "he did not say anything about her being dead."?
His answer seems to imply he knew she might be dead , but didn't know she had been potentially murdered or committed suicide.

Paul's account in the Lloyds interview is confusing, as he seems to be contradicting what was said in evidence at the inquest-that might indicate that he was somewhat of an attention seeker, who wanted to make it seem as though his role was more important than it actually was.

Thus, in the Lloyds interview he strongly implies that he alone went in search of a police officer, whilst presumably Cross continued on his journey to work:"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."

He's then reported as saying that the "woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time...." However, at the inquest we're told that the victim's face felt warm and, far from believing she'd been "dead some time", Paul was of the opinion that she was still alive: "I think she is still breathing...."

Regarding Cross, I don't think he would have simply "disappeared in to the night ". He was clearly a local man so the police would have had little problem in subsequently identifying him. And, by not going in search of a police officer his actions would have appeared extremely suspicious.

However, if he was the killer I doubt he would have wanted Paul tagging along whilst he looked for a police officer: Paul could have contradicted him, i.e. as regards another officer already being in attendance, and might have said something that cast suspicion on him. But he had an easy way out of this predicament: he could simply have told Paul, "Look there's no point in both of us being even later for work-you get off, whilst I look for a policeman. Then, when he found Mizen, he would have had no fear of being contradicted by Paul and there would be no witnesses to their conversation, so if the account was disputed it would be his word against Mizen's.

[Fisherman]

What was said of course is a matter of belief,from information that has been handed down.
Whatever,why would they go looking for a policeman unless they(Cross and Paul)felt one was needed?And it's Shylock not Sherlock.

We KNOW that Paul felt that a PC was needed, so thatīs why they went looking for one. How does that clear Lechmere?

He would have had alternative choices. He could have said, "Nah, letīs skip looking for a PC", but that would make him look suspicious afterwards. He could have said "You go west and I will go east, looking for a PC", and he would get out of Bucks Row. But his face would be known, and when/if Paul found a PC and told him that there was this other man who stood alone by the body, he would be in trouble.

If he was the killer, he acted cool as a cucumber, and quite rationally. Teaming up with Paul would make him look like one out of two carmen going to work in company. And the police would not be looking for that kind of people. If we add to this that the contacted a PC, that would practically ensure that they would be regrded as kosher. However, it would be vital to Lechmere that this PC was NOT informed that HE was the finder or that the errand was a grave one.

And lo and behold, that exact information seems to have been withhold from Mizen.

But of course, that will be sheer coincidence, as always.

[Fisherman]

John G: Paul's account in the Lloyds interview is confusing, as he seems to be contradicting what was said in evidence at the inquest-that might indicate that he was somewhat of an attention seeker, who wanted to make it seem as though his role was more important than it actually was.

Absolutely. Either this is true, or the reporter took it upon himself to spice things up, after having realized that he had only gotten hold of the next most interesting carman. Whichever applies, Pauls inquest testimony and the Lloyds article cannot both be true.

Thus, in the Lloyds interview he strongly implies that he alone went in search of a police officer, whilst presumably Cross continued on his journey to work:"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."

Exactly so.

He's then reported as saying that the "woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time...." However, at the inquest we're told that the victim's face felt warm and, far from believing she'd been "dead some time", Paul was of the opinion that she was still alive: "I think she is still breathing...."

Yep.

Regarding Cross, I don't think he would have simply "disappeared in to the night ". He was clearly a local man so the police would have had little problem in subsequently identifying him. And, by not going in search of a police officer his actions would have appeared extremely suspicious.

True enough - one would expect him to fetch help if he really thought that the woman was dead or perhaps even dying.

However, if he was the killer I doubt he would have wanted Paul tagging along whilst he looked for a police officer: Paul could have contradicted him, i.e. as regards another officer already being in attendance, and might have said something that cast suspicion on him. But he had an easy way out of this predicament: he could simply have told Paul, "Look there's no point in both of us being even later for work-you get off, whilst I look for a policeman. Then, when he found Mizen, he would have had no fear of being contradicted by Paul and there would be no witnesses to their conversation, so if the account was disputed it would be his word against Mizen's.

I think that Lechmere profited from leaving Bucks Row in company with Paul - not only did he get time to find out just how much his fellow carman had seen or heard, he also teamed up with a man, making it look as if they were jointly walking to work. The police would reasonably be looking for a fleeing killer, not two men walking to work.
My belief is that they - on Pauls suggestion - agreed to go looking for a PC, and when they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere said "Thereīs an officer, Iīll tell him what we found, so you just walk ahead and Iīll catch up with you!"

That is how I think the evidence should be read.

[Harry D]

He would have had alternative choices. He could have said, "Nah, letīs skip looking for a PC", but that would make him look suspicious afterwards. He could have said "You go west and I will go east, looking for a PC", and he would get out of Bucks Row. But his face would be known, and when/if Paul found a PC and told him that there was this other man who stood alone by the body, he would be in trouble.

You've got to love this. Let's get this right... Lechmere acting in a completely rational manner is therefore indicative of his guilt? This is why you'll never win with any suspect-based argument, because the proponent will almost always employ this kind of backwards logic. The scenario you posited (i.e. Lechmere & Paul splitting up) is exactly what the killer would've wanted, that is to get the hell out of there before he can incriminate himself. Instead, you argue that Lechmere stayed with Paul because he wanted to control the situation because he's an evil mastermind who lies to policemen in front of a witness. How would Lechmere be in anymore trouble in the splitting-up scenario than he would by sticking with Paul and lying to a copper? Lechmere's story would've been corroborated and they would still have no reason to suspect him, let alone charge him with any crime.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: You've got to love this.

No, you donīt have to love it at all. Itīs anybodys decision. But it would be nice with some little respect. Not that I think you are able to deliver it, but anyway...

Let's get this right...

Yes, please - but can you? I doubt it. Letīs see!

Lechmere acting in a completely rational manner is therefore indicative of his guilt?

No, not at all. Many people act rationally and are totally unguilty. So you are wrong on that score.

This is why you'll never win with any suspect-based argument, because the proponent will almost always employ this kind of backwards logic.

If you think my opponents have their logic backwards, I can live with that. I actually agree most of the time.

The scenario you posited (i.e. Lechmere & Paul splitting up) is exactly what the killer would've wanted, that is to get the hell out of there before he can incriminate himself.

But I posited no such scenario. I think they went from the murder spot to where Mizen was in company, and that Lechmere took it upon himself to speak to the PC. I think Lechmere chose not to run since he knew that running is a very good way of incriminating yourself. And I trust you are saying that he would not want to do that...?


Instead, you argue that Lechmere stayed with Paul because he wanted to control the situation because he's an evil mastermind who lies to policemen in front of a witness.

Grow up. The "evil mastermind" stuff is soooo childish. Serial killers are very often psychopaths - fact. Many of these serialists have been men with a very high IQ - fact. They do not panick, since they cannot panick - fact. Instead, they are able to act ratioinally under pressure - fact.
That does not amount to any evil mastermind, though. It amounts to a person who is able to make rational choices under pressure, nothing else.
But you want a perfectly feasible suggestion to look like a very odd one, so you drag this mastermind shite in, time after time. Donīt. It makes you look sillier than necessary.

How would Lechmere be in anymore trouble in the splitting-up scenario than he would by sticking with Paul and lying to a copper?

He would not necessarily be in any trouble at all if he fled. But he COULD run into a PC, and if he DID, then he would be neck-high in ****.
If he stuck with Paul, and left Bucks Row calmly, he would not look like the killer. And from there, he could take control of the situation and steer it into something that took him out of harms way. It is a manner of thinking that is very, very consistent with psychopathy. Psychopaths are people who are very good liars, and able to convince others that they are NOT lying.
You may now of course employ the clever idea that we do not know that Lechmere WAS a psychopath, and I can answer as I always do, that IF he was the killer, then he WAS a psychopath. And then you can start gabbing on about circular reasoning, and we can take it all another lap around the course.
Iīm gain if you are.

Lechmere's story would've been corroborated and they would still have no reason to suspect him, let alone charge him with any crime.

Unless you have understood this before, the aim of what a lying psychopath does, is actually to create a situation where he can stay unsuspected. BIG surprise, eh?
Whatever you mean about Lechmereīs story being corroborated, I can only say that there is no evidence whatsoever that this happened when it comes to the vital parts of the story.