Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Harry D]

If Lechmere acts unconventionally, he's shifty and must be the killer. If Lechmere acts conventionally, he's playing innocent and must be the killer. That's what I mean when I talk about "backwards-logic".

You are the one who attested that if Lechmere & Paul split up to look for coppers that this could come back to haunt him. I fail to see your logic here. Let's say that Paul bumps into Mizen while Lechmere carries on his merry way. What does this mean for Lechmere? Nothing at all. It wouldn't change his version of events, and at least in this scenario there's a chance that he'll make a getaway without having to deal with a policeman, which believe it or not is the last thing a criminal wants to do. Except for Professor Moria- *ahem*... I mean Lechmere, that is.

[John G]

The problem Cross had, as I suggested previously, was that he lived and worked locally. And, of course, Paul could identify him. Not only that, even if he wasn't distinctively dressed, i.e. as a carman, the police may have been able to narrow down his likely profession based on the time he was leaving for work. It would therefore be reasonable to conclude that the police would have been able to find him should he not have come forward.

Therefore, whether he was innocent or guilty, he would have been taking a big risk by allowing Paul to go in search of a police officer by himself, because he couldn't be sure what he might say. For instance, he might have seriously implicated him by telling PC Mizen, "I've just come across a man standing over a woman's body; I believe she might be dead. However, I don't know where he is now, because whilst I decided to do my civic duty and go in search of a police officer, he decided to quickly depart the scene."

That certainly wouldn't have been what Cross would have wanted!

[Harry D]

Therefore, whether he was innocent or guilty, he would have been taking a big risk by allowing Paul to go in search of a police officer by himself, because he couldn't be sure what he might say. For instance, he might have seriously implicated him by telling PC Mizen, "I've just come across a man standing over a woman's body; I believe she might be dead. However, I don't know where he is now, because whilst I decided to do my civic duty and go in search of a police officer, he decided to quickly depart the scene."

Not if Lechmere & Paul had agreed to split up in their search for a policeman. Regardless of what Paul would've told the copper, there would be nothing to incriminate Lechmere. However, if Lechmere still had the murder weapon on his person (which I assume Fisherman claims) or any kind of blood residue on his clothing, he would want to avoid any interactions with the police if he could help it. Except Lechmere didn't do that.

[Fisherman]

Harry D:

If Lechmere acts unconventionally, he's shifty and must be the killer.

Once again, no. People who act"unconventionally "must not be killers. But of course, the police WILL be looking for unconventional behaviour in murder cases. Do you consider that in any way strange?

If Lechmere acts conventionally, he's playing innocent and must be the killer.

Not at all. Conventionally acting people are normally innocent people. And indeed, it is not the conventional behaviour of the carman that I find suspicious - it is the unconventional parts that are of interest.

That's what I mean when I talk about "backwards-logic".

I see. So what do you think of people who say "If he acted conventionally, he is probably innocent. If he acted unconventionally on the other hand, then eeeehhhh - he is probably innocent just the same.

Is that not just as backwards? Or?

You are the one who attested that if Lechmere & Paul split up to look for coppers that this could come back to haunt him.

I am one of the people who think so, yes.

I fail to see your logic here.

Yes, I know. And Edwards logic. And Andy Griffiths´ logic. Etcetera.

Let's say that Paul bumps into Mizen while Lechmere carries on his merry way.

Yes, let´s! And...?

What does this mean for Lechmere? Nothing at all.

If he was the killer, I´d say that it means potential trouble. It would mean that Mizen was served with Pauls version of the events, instead of Lechmere´s.

It wouldn't change his version of events, and at least in this scenario there's a chance that he'll make a getaway without having to deal with a policeman, which believe it or not is the last thing a criminal wants to do.

Eh...? What are you talking about? It would not change his version of events? How so? If Paul testified at the inquest that Lechmere was the one man whospoke to Mizen, for example, then Lechmere had better change his version of events. And so on.
You need to rethink this, Harry. Or to start thinking.

Except for Professor Moria- *ahem*... I mean Lechmere, that is.

I´m afraid of you are so totally impressed with a man who lies his way out of a tight spot, then it says more about your demands intellectual supremacy than it does about the actual state of affairs.

[John G]

Not if Lechmere & Paul had agreed to split up in their search for a policeman. Regardless of what Paul would've told the copper, there would be nothing to incriminate Lechmere. However, if Lechmere still had the murder weapon on his person (which I assume Fisherman claims) or any kind of blood residue on his clothing, he would want to avoid any interactions with the police if he could help it. Except Lechmere didn't do that.

I still think his best option, innocent or guilty, would have been to go with Paul. That way he could have ensured that anything Paul might say to a police officer which cast suspicion upon him, however slightly, could be challenged or explained. Moreover, is it likely that Paul would have said anything incriminating about Cross, to say a police officer, with Cross stood beside him?

[Fisherman]

I still think his best option, innocent or guilty, would have been to go with Paul. That way he could have ensured that anything Paul might say to a police officer which cast suspicion upon him, however slightly, could be challenged or explained. Moreover, is it likely that Paul would have said anything incriminating about Cross, to say a police officer, with Cross stood beside him?

What is seldom discussed is how there may have been a calculated risktaking involved when Lechmere walked out of Bucks Row with Robert Paul. If we work from the assumption that Lechmere was the killer, then there can be little doubt that he would be interested in leaving the murder site in as calm and inconspicious a way as possible. Leaving with Paul offered the top of the line option in that department.
The downside, as suggested by the naysayers, would be that Lechmere risked to be faced with a PC along the way, in which case he would need to take evasive action.
But there was of course always the chance that Lechmere and Paul would NOT bump into any PC. And that may have been something that Lechmere recognized as the very best solution - to leave with Paul, not to meet any PC, and then to shrug his shoulders together with his fellow carman, hoping that the latter would let things lie.

As it happens, Lechmere was not lucky enough to avoid the police. But then again, he DID have an evasive action prepared when it happened. If, that is, Mizen was truthful. For if he was, then Lechmere was a liar and almost certainly the killer.

[Harry D]

Fisherman tapped out with his not-so-thinly veiled insults. Moving on...

I still think his best option, innocent or guilty, would have been to go with Paul. That way he could have ensured that anything Paul might say to a police officer which cast suspicion upon him, however slightly, could be challenged or explained. Moreover, is it likely that Paul would have said anything incriminating about Cross, to say a police officer, with Cross stood beside him?

Would it heck. Try putting yourself in the "killer's" shoes. You've just committed murder, you're carrying a bloody knife in your backpocket. Now, I would imagine the last thing you would want is to be dealing with the law. What if Mizen had decided to search the pair of them? No, the killer would want to escape the hot-zone without any interaction with the police if he could help it. Lechmere could've helped it but chose not to.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Fisherman tapped out with his not-so-thinly veiled insults. Moving on...

Only you don´t get to decide who gets to express their views on a public forum, Harry.
But I can see how you are outraged by my insults - a guy like you who never resorts to any such thing yourself at all would naturally be.

Would it heck. Try putting yourself in the "killer's" shoes. You've just committed murder, you're carrying a bloody knife in your backpocket. Now, I would imagine the last thing you would want is to be dealing with the law. What if Mizen had decided to search the pair of them? No, the killer would want to escape the hot-zone without any interaction with the police if he could help it. Lechmere could've helped it but chose not to.

As you said, you cannot see the logic of this suggestion. John G is not any Lechmere proponent, but he nevertheless can see the logic of he suggestion. He thinks it is the better suggestion altogether.

So, you see, Harry, YOUR logic may be the flawed one here. YOU may be wrong.

A thinly veiled insult, I know, but there you are.

[John G]

Fisherman tapped out with his not-so-thinly veiled insults. Moving on...



Would it heck. Try putting yourself in the "killer's" shoes. You've just committed murder, you're carrying a bloody knife in your backpocket. Now, I would imagine the last thing you would want is to be dealing with the law. What if Mizen had decided to search the pair of them? No, the killer would want to escape the hot-zone without any interaction with the police if he could help it. Lechmere could've helped it but chose not to.

Not necessarily. The difficulty he has is that he's been seen near to a dead body by a witness (Paul). Nor can he know for certain whether Paul suspects him of any wrongdoing. Moreover, if he just leaves the scene without reporting to the police what he'd discovered, the police would have surely been entitled to treat him as a serious suspect. And if he was the killer, and is intention was to flee the scene without reporting the incident, why did he call Paul over? In fact, this action, from the perspective of Lechmere being the murderer, would suggest that he intended to brazen it out and, furthermore. finding a police officer would be consistent with this strategy.

Of course, he could have suggested to Paul that they split up in search of a police officer, but that would entail a risk: they might give conflicting accounts to different officers, which would seem suspicious, or worse, Paul might say something that casts suspicion on him.

Subsequently informing PC Mizen that he was wanted by another officer would certainly be risky-as Paul might contradict him-but it had the advantage of ensuring that Mizen wouldn't ask him any awkward questions, as he would assume that the other officer had spoken to him and was satisfied with his account.


As for the possibility that Mizen might search the pair of them, would he have been entitled to do this? What were the stop and search rules in 1888?

And don't forget, according to at least one report, PC Mizen was simply told that he was wanted in "Bakers Row" and that "a woman has been found there"( Times, September 4, 1888). So, in these circumstances, what grounds would Mizen have for searching Cross or, say, checking for blood stains?

[Harry D]

[B]Only you don´t get to decide who gets to express their views on a public forum, Harry.

Of course not, but I'm done with your cattiness.

Not necessarily. The difficulty he has is that he's been seen near to a dead body by a witness (Paul). Nor can he know for certain whether Paul suspects him of any wrongdoing. Moreover, if he just leaves the scene without reporting to the police what he'd discovered, the police would have surely been entitled to treat him as a serious suspect. And if he was the killer, and is intention was to flee the scene without reporting the incident, why did he call Paul over? In fact, this action, from the perspective of Lechmere being the murderer, would suggest that he intended to brazen it out and, furthermore. finding a police officer would be consistent with this strategy.

Of course, he could have suggested to Paul that they split up in search of a police officer, but that would entail a risk: they might give conflicting accounts to different officers, which would seem suspicious, or worse, Paul might say something that casts suspicion on him.

Subsequently informing PC Mizen that he was wanted by another officer would certainly be risky-as Paul might contradict him-but it had the advantage of ensuring that Mizen wouldn't ask him any awkward questions, as he would assume that the other officer had spoken to him and was satisfied with his account.

As for the possibility that Mizen might search the pair of them, would he have been entitled to do this? What were the stop and search rules in 1888?

And don't forget, according to at least one report, PC Mizen was simply told that he was wanted in "Bakers Row" and that "a woman has been found there"( Times, September 4, 1888). So, in these circumstances, what grounds would Mizen have for searching Cross or, say, checking for blood stains?

Again, it doesn't matter if Paul shifts suspicion onto Lechmere as there's no evidence to string him up for the murder. Unless he confessed or was caught redhanded, there was nothing for Lechmere to fear.

[drstrange169]

??And of course, this was not what you said in your original post. <<

Isn't it?

Let me check .... Post 713 .... Nope, just the same, nothing changed.

Not doing too well are you Christer?

Next

[drstrange169]

>>I do not falsify things<<

You lied in your TV show as I've already pointed out.

You are constantly mendacious in various threads on Casebook.

End of.

[drstrange169]

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

Difference is, honest people acknowledge their errors.


>>-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.<<

The actual quotes are,

"Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

" It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately."

"He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up."

"... witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else. "

"A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted? Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person."

You do seem to have an obsession we altering quotes, don't you?


>>And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol.<<

Cite the protocol, if you could , please.


>>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. <<

Again, you are quote altering.

What Mizen is actually reported as saying is,

"A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

or alternatively,

"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

The difference between your altered version and what was actually reported, is that Mizen had no idea of the urgency go the phantom Policeman's request.

[drstrange169]

Hello 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.<<

He or the reporter, I agree most wholeheartedly.

Which is why we should cross check to see which parts of that story are verified by independent information. On this specific subject, we have both Paul and Xmere saying the same thing, i.e. that Paul told Mizen, he thought Mrs. Nichols might be dead.

>>... 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."<<

Of course the operative word you used was "implied".

Was this the reporters doing or Paul's?

What we do know is that the sentence is not inaccurate. Once again Xmere confirmed that Paul said he would go for a policeman.

>>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...."<<

This is suspect, because it is not supported by any independent evidence.

>>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.<<

I'm sorry I don't understand. How could the police identify a man they never saw, if he "disappeared into the night"?

>>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 agree.

[drstrange169]

>That is how I think the evidence should be read.<<

Doesn't that just perfectly sum up your Xmere argument?

Ignore what was actually said and tell everybody what you think it should have said.