Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Columbo]

And we can but assume they were provided the same as viewers of the documentary, things like Paul finding Cross crouched over the dead body, for example.

I'm not too sure about that because the graphics would've been prepared after the live shots. I don't recall, but if the experts were told on camera Cross was crouching then that would be ridiculous because all they had to do was read the available information.

On most documentaries they have researchers. Does anyone know if there were any other researchers besides Fisherman?

Columbo

[Columbo]

[I][B]>>
>>I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. <<

Columbo

[Columbo]

There you go!

But I consider the docu a very useful starting point for a discussion.

Absolutely! There are several bits of information provided by yourself that have raised questions in my mind. I think people need to realize though that the docu is not the final, totally reliable story of Cross case as put forth by Edward and yourself, and quoting the experts' opinions may not be the best idea because we don't know what was edited out.

The documentary source problem was put forth on this forum when a poster asked why, in the docu To Kill and Kill Again, Donald Rumbelow, during one of his Ripper Walks, said an axe may have been used on MJK to split her thigh bone, when that was not suggested in the autopsy report. That idea was put forth years ago because an axe was found in the room although not tied to her death. So we have a renowned expert (who I think wrote the most definitive book on the case with his revised "The Complete Jack the Ripper) speculating to a crowd of people, not the facts, but basically gossip. that should've been fact-checked and edited out, but because this is a 128 year old case, the documentary makers don't make the effort towards accurancy that they should.

I could go on for hours on this but you get the point.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.

I also think it's very dangerous to take what experts say in these things as gospel. We don't know in what context it was said because of the editing process. Unless a question is posed to an expert un-edited and the response is un-edited it leaves too much open for interpretation.

Quite frankly it would be foolish of us to use the documentary as the basis for a factual discussion. Most documentaries on any subject just don't have the time to explore every angle of all they're discussing, which is a little unsettling because they sometimes cherry-pick the information, especially in crime when the documentary focuses on one suspect.

Cross as a suspect didn't need some of the changes in the doc, i.e, a graphic showing him crouching over the body, to push suspicion his way. There's enough, no matter how weak some may think it is, to take a look at him. But let's not put him in the patheons as the Super Serial Killer. If he did it, he got lucky not getting caught by Paul, and by not(as far as we know)being considered suspect by the police. I still have problems with the proposed escape because it's just too complicated and risky on his part, but that doesn't make it any less intriguing.


Columbo

There you go!

But I consider the docu a very useful starting point for a discussion.

[Columbo]

Wouldn't have done much for the doco......

Correct, and as Fisherman pointed out, he didn't have final say on the documentary's content.

I also think it's very dangerous to take what experts say in these things as gospel. We don't know in what context it was said because of the editing process. Unless a question is posed to an expert un-edited and the response is un-edited it leaves too much open for interpretation.

Quite frankly it would be foolish of us to use the documentary as the basis for a factual discussion. Most documentaries on any subject just don't have the time to explore every angle of all they're discussing, which is a little unsettling because they sometimes cherry-pick the information, especially in crime when the documentary focuses on one suspect.

Cross as a suspect didn't need some of the changes in the doc, i.e, a graphic showing him crouching over the body, to push suspicion his way. There's enough, no matter how weak some may think it is, to take a look at him. But let's not put him in the patheons as the Super Serial Killer. If he did it, he got lucky not getting caught by Paul, and by not(as far as we know)being considered suspect by the police. I still have problems with the proposed escape because it's just too complicated and risky on his part, but that doesn't make it any less intriguing.


Columbo

[Fisherman]

I've got to start using the colors. Much easier to follow the responses.

Columbo

I use it to try and lay down that there are three or more layers of discussion: Quoted old posts, reactions to those posts, and my answers to the reactions.

Technically, I am pathetic.

[Columbo]

drstrange169:
I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:"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."THIS is what you said in your post.

I'm avioding nothing, I'm waiting for you to explain your accusatation.

Accusation? I am making no accusation. I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.

Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?

I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.

No what you wrote was,
“I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated [I]about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them. Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?”

I repeat:

I initiated no discussion, I simply replied to your post. Do you understand the difference between initiating and replying?

Let´s see, do I understand that difference? Eh, is one that you start something yourself and the other that you reply to what somebody else has started? Is that it?

Now that this has been cleared up, I want an answer to the question I put to you: How on earth would Mizen ponder that Neil could have been the first finder even if the carmen had not mentioned the other PC?

You said that this was so. No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.

It should be entertaining, I can say that much.

And I also repeat:

I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.

Nor did I say that you have, did I? Although it would be very informative if they/he did, and very odd if he/they did not.

I am not sure what this has to do with my question, however.

There certainly is aviodance going on, but it's not from me.

Until you answer my question, that is untrue.

Can you point to the exact wording in the sentence you keep quoting where I say they did? How exactly should I answer something that only exists in your mind?

I am not saying they did. I am saying that even if Paul and Lechmere never said A/ that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and even if they never told Mizen B/ that HE/THEY were the finder/s, it would still make no sense for Mizen to accept that Neil could have been the finder. Please explain how such a thing would work.


The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him ...

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

‘Nuff said.

But that leaves out our knowledge that he DID say that he only finished off his ongoing knocking up errand before he went down to Bucks Row. It therefore remains that although some papers miss out on this detail, it WAS stated by Mizen.
You choose the report from the Echo, where nothing is said about how Mizen qualified himself in this respect, and I would suggest that for example The Daily News reveals the full context:

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.

Here we have the full context. We can see that it has been suggested that Mizen continued his knocking up business after having spoken to the carman, and that the PC explains what happened: He broke off his knocking up, but since he had already knocked on one door or window with no answer, he saw that particular errand through before proceeding to Bucks Row.

What you seem to state is that there is a discrepancy built into Mizens testimony on this point, but there cannot be. He either said that he did not proceed to knock people up or he did not. And it is not until we look at all the reports that we can see what happened. To pick one specific report and look away from all the others to try and strengthen an untenable argument will not do under these circumstances.

RE: Protocol

I never said that Mizen broke it

Correct.
You said,
“And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol."

And I asked you to cite the protocol you claimed he followed, once again you’re altering what people say to, it seems, aviod answering questions.

It does not lie upon me to cite the protocol, since my answer was in response to YOUR suggestion that Mizen broke protocol. In other words, you inititated the protocol discussion (see, I used that word again!), and therefore it is your responsibility to cite protocol.
If you are correct, it is an eminent chance to show off, Dusty - you should pounce on it!

I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.

As I've pointed out before, I realised you were not here for serious reseach when you wrote the line I use as a sign off at the bottom of my posts. I can't recall ever being "vicious" about anything it's not my nature, but I don't shy away from people who throw crap out there.

But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?

You really need to sort these matters out before you try to lesson on serious research.

I understand why you don't like it, but the solution isn't in my hands, it's in yours.

Yes, I know. But you always seem to protest when I say that the solution is in my hands, not yours.

I've got to start using the colors. Much easier to follow the responses.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:
I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:"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."THIS is what you said in your post.

I'm avioding nothing, I'm waiting for you to explain your accusatation.

Accusation? I am making no accusation. I want you to explain how Mizen would have had no obvious reason to suppose that Neil could not have been the first to discover the body even if the two carmen did not mention another PC.

Should be simple and straightforward enough, one would think?

I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.

No what you wrote was,
“I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated [I]about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them. Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?”

I repeat:

I initiated no discussion, I simply replied to your post. Do you understand the difference between initiating and replying?

Let´s see, do I understand that difference? Eh, is one that you start something yourself and the other that you reply to what somebody else has started? Is that it?

Now that this has been cleared up, I want an answer to the question I put to you: How on earth would Mizen ponder that Neil could have been the first finder even if the carmen had not mentioned the other PC?

You said that this was so. No matter if you feel that I initiated the discussion or not, I want my answer.

It should be entertaining, I can say that much.

And I also repeat:

I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.

Nor did I say that you have, did I? Although it would be very informative if they/he did, and very odd if he/they did not.

I am not sure what this has to do with my question, however.

There certainly is aviodance going on, but it's not from me.

Until you answer my question, that is untrue.

Can you point to the exact wording in the sentence you keep quoting where I say they did? How exactly should I answer something that only exists in your mind?

I am not saying they did. I am saying that even if Paul and Lechmere never said A/ that there was another PC in Bucks Row, and even if they never told Mizen B/ that HE/THEY were the finder/s, it would still make no sense for Mizen to accept that Neil could have been the finder. Please explain how such a thing would work.


The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him ...

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

‘Nuff said.

But that leaves out our knowledge that he DID say that he only finished off his ongoing knocking up errand before he went down to Bucks Row. It therefore remains that although some papers miss out on this detail, it WAS stated by Mizen.
You choose the report from the Echo, where nothing is said about how Mizen qualified himself in this respect, and I would suggest that for example The Daily News reveals the full context:

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.

Here we have the full context. We can see that it has been suggested that Mizen continued his knocking up business after having spoken to the carman, and that the PC explains what happened: He broke off his knocking up, but since he had already knocked on one door or window with no answer, he saw that particular errand through before proceeding to Bucks Row.

What you seem to state is that there is a discrepancy built into Mizens testimony on this point, but there cannot be. He either said that he did not proceed to knock people up or he did not. And it is not until we look at all the reports that we can see what happened. To pick one specific report and look away from all the others to try and strengthen an untenable argument will not do under these circumstances.

RE: Protocol

I never said that Mizen broke it

Correct.
You said,
“And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol."

And I asked you to cite the protocol you claimed he followed, once again you’re altering what people say to, it seems, aviod answering questions.

It does not lie upon me to cite the protocol, since my answer was in response to YOUR suggestion that Mizen broke protocol. In other words, you inititated the protocol discussion (see, I used that word again!), and therefore it is your responsibility to cite protocol.
If you are correct, it is an eminent chance to show off, Dusty - you should pounce on it!

I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.

As I've pointed out before, I realised you were not here for serious reseach when you wrote the line I use as a sign off at the bottom of my posts. I can't recall ever being "vicious" about anything it's not my nature, but I don't shy away from people who throw crap out there.

But how can it be less serious research to know what you are talking about? And how is your not being familar with the facts serious research? It is "Alice in Wonderland" all over again.
And how is accusing me of having misled you when I told you that Emily was already dead serious research? Is it not true that I did not have to mislead you at all - that you had managed to do so on your very own?

You really need to sort these matters out before you try to lesson on serious research.

I understand why you don't like it, but the solution isn't in my hands, it's in yours.

Yes, I know. But you always seem to protest when I say that the solution is in my hands, not yours.

[drstrange169]

>> I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:"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."THIS is what you said in your post.<<

I'm avioding nothing, I'm waiting for you to explain your accusatation.

>>I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.<<

No what you wrote was,
“I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them. Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?”

I repeat:

I initiated no discussion, I simply replied to your post. Do you understand the difference between initiating and replying?

And I also repeat:

I did not, and as back as I can remember, I have never claimed Xmere and Paul told Mizen they found the body.

There certainly is aviodance going on, but it's not from me. Can you point to the exact wording in the sentence you keep quoting where I say they did? How exactly should I answer something that only exists in your mind?


>>The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him ...<<

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

RE: Protocol
>>I never said that Mizen broke it<<

Correct.
You said,
“And as I have already said, Mizen seems to have acted properly and accordoing to protocol.”

And I asked you to cite the protocol you claimed he followed, once again you’re altering what people say to, it seems, aviod answering questions.


>>I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.<<

As I've pointed out before, I realised you were not here for serious reseach when you wrote the line I use as a sign off at the bottom of my posts. I can't recall ever being "vicious" about anything it's not my nature, but I don't shy away from people who throw crap out there.

I understand why you don't like it, but the solution isn't in my hands, it's in yours.

[Fisherman]

Why then was it out to air with Paul finding Cross crouched over the body, if he was told something else?

The representation of how Lechmere bent over the dead body of Nichols was made by the film crew, and you should ask them, not me, exactly why it was done that way. Of course, the docu suggests that Lechmere was the killer, and in order to have been, he MUST have bent over Nichols. So it works as a suggestion, although as Edward and I pointed out immediately, we would not have done it the way it was done in the graphic presentation.
However, Scobie was given a thick, compiled file of information attaching to the case, and it would only be if the film crew maliciously fit a description into the material where they said that Lechmere was actually found crouching over the body that there would be a risk involved.

Did the crew know where Lechmere placed himself? Yes, they did. Did they present Andy Griffiths with a large and useful compilation of the case material in the shape of reports and paper articles? Yes, they did - it was the exact same material that I got, and it was clear, concise and full enough.

You can always reason that David McNab, the producer, took Scobie to the side and whispered outright lies into his ear, not only about the crouching but also about just about anything else that relates to the affair. If McNab did, then it would not matter if the file Scobie got was impeccable; it could always be reasoned that Scobies take on the case owed to fraudulent behavior on account of somebody involved in the productions just the same.

The only really interesting thing about that is that this is precisely what you lot boil it down to - on no evidence at all. THAT is where the relevance of this whole discussion lies, and THAT is where anybody reading this exchange have something to learn.

[Fisherman]

Indeed.

And the most obvious question, since Scobie is a renowned defence Q.C., why wasn't he asked about the chances of Xmere being not guilty in his expert opinion??

You need to listen to what Scobie says:
"Piece it all together, and the prosecution has the most probative, powerful material for a court to use against individual suspects".

That does not exactly speak of a weak case, guaranteeing that Lechmere would get off the hook, does it?

Scobie adds that we are speaking of "a case good enough to put before the jury that suggests that he was the killer".

So there you are, Dusty.

Now, it should be recognized that the docu was not about finding as many excuses as possible for the carman and presenting all the alternative innocent explanations that could be thought of. It was about presenting Charles Lechmere as a suspect, and so the choice of material will be in line with that intention. Perplexing, I know, but that is the way it works.

However, Dusty, you have the great advantage of having a direct line to somebody who has seen many minutes of material from the Scobie interview, and so I can throw further light upon the matter.
The problem is that you distrust me and spek of me as a habitual liar, so no matter what I tell you, there is always the chance that you think I am once again falsifying and lying.

Of course, I DID tell you about how Griffiths did not think the meeting between Lechmere and Paul odd, and that may perhaps speak in favour of me being able to tell a truth at times? At least if we define passages that seemingly support Lechmere´s innnocence as truths whereas we regard passages that seem to incriminate him as lies?

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I have seen material where Scobie says that Lechmere´s destiny in court, if there was a trial against him, would hinge on his answers to the questions that were put to him. Basically, that means that Scobie did not rule out that the carman could have had information to offer that would either clear him or at least enable him to stand trial without getting convicted.

And that is as it should be - we cannot convict an unheard person. However, as the errand stands, Scobies conviction was that Lechmere acted in a way that was suspicious and that a jury would dislike him for that. He also thought that there were way too many coincidences needed to clear the carman for it to be a viable suggestion.

Consequentually, he thought that the material involved in the accusation act was enough to make him feel that Lechmere was in all probability the killer.

[GUT]

Why then was it out to air with Paul finding Cross crouched over the body, if he was told something else?

[Fisherman]

And we can but assume they were provided the same as viewers of the documentary, things like Paul finding Cross crouched over the dead body, for example.

Since that was not in the written sources, why would you assume that? And why would you not assume that he was given the material I and Andy Griffiths was given? And why do you not look at the material that you can actually see in the documentary that he was given?

Perhaps beacuse that does not allow for malicious speculation?

[Fisherman]

And any expert opinion, unless he is also a student of the case, is only as good as the information he is given.

In a Court the first thing an expert does is tells you what his opinion is based on, you show that to be wrong and his opinion is worthless.

It´s the same with criticism - it is only as good as the material it is based on.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

Not doing too well are you Christer?

I am doing very fine. And I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:

"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."

THIS is what you said in your post. I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.

So I am asking for it again.

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

A rather reckless accusation, but coming from you, there is no need to worry about it. It´s just your level of debating.

Difference is, honest people acknowledge their errors.

Like how you avoid answering the question above, I take it? And like how you said that I am reluctent to admit that Andy Griffiths said that he saw nothing strange in how Lechmere approached Paul - forgetting that I am the one who have told you this?
Your contributions do stand out at times, Dusty.

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?

I clearly pointed out that the passage within quotation marks respresents how I think the conversation would have gone down. It is a totally accepted method of writing. But you may be unaware of this too.

The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him, and it is abundantly clear that this is not true, since Mizen qualified the matter by saying that he finished one knocking-up errand before he went to Bucks Row.
Exactly how he worded it is something we cannot establish, but we do have the knowledge that he did.

That means that you are not at liberty to falsely lead on that he did not. The quotations that leave out Mizens qualification are not complete quotations. And even if you have a flair for half quotations, a flair for accepting the facts would be more becoming.

Cite the protocol, if you could , please.


I never said that Mizen broke it. You did. So YOU cite away. I can say from the outset that you are wrong and falsely leading on something that is not true, but you are going to have to try and clear yourself on your very own. Not that it is going to happen, but in order to get things in the correct order, you should at least be given the chance. Good luck!

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.

How can I be, when I am not even quoting?

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.

Once more, I altered no version. I said that the information offered to Mizen involved how a woman was lying in Bucks Row, and that a PC was in place there. It is far from unreasonable to reason that this PC would have been tending to the errand as such. Unless you think otherwise?

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.

Does it not sum up any theory? That the ones ascribing to it read the evidence in a manner that casts suspicion on their suspect?
How is that in any way controversial, if I may ask?

If I had not qualified that I am speaking of my own interpretation of the evidence, you would have said "But that is no fact, it is just your speculation!"

Now that I say that myself, how come you have a problem with it?

It seems to me that your overriding goal is to try and paint me out as a malicious liar. The problem is, you are overegging the pudding. You are attacking quite trivial matters that should cause no concern at all. You even accuse me of hiding facts that you are only aware of because I have NOT hidden them, which makes for a rather pathetic line of debating.
And you are at the same time avoiding to deliver the answers you need to produce.

I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.