Lechmere Continuation Thread

[GUT]

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??

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

[drstrange169]

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??

[GUT]

>>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.<<

Bingo! Or as we used to say, Housey, Housey.

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.

[drstrange169]

>>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.<<

Bingo! Or as we used to say, Housey, Housey.

[drstrange169]

The difficulty he has is that he's been seen near to a dead body by a witness (Paul).

The key point here is, Xmere chose to be seen, so presumably he didn't consider it a difficulty.

>>Nor can he know for certain whether Paul suspects him of any wrongdoing.<<

Certain? No, but since Paul's Lloyds interview gives not even the slightest hint of attributing guilt to Xmere, it would have seemed a pretty safe bet.

In fact that's one of the points I've always found odd. Why didn't give any hint of suspicion to either the newspaper or the inquest?

[GUT]

I don't usually pass judgement but the fact is Cross only needed to get away from Paul. He didn't need to talk to the cops. He was in no danger of getting caught if he simply walked away from Paul. We can word it any way you like, but expert opinions mean nothing this far out so it becomes a very uninformed opinion since there is no way to validate it.

Columbo

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.

[Columbo]

I don't usually pass judgement but the fact is Cross only needed to get away from Paul. He didn't need to talk to the cops. He was in no danger of getting caught if he simply walked away from Paul. We can word it any way you like, but expert opinions mean nothing this far out so it becomes a very uninformed opinion since there is no way to validate it.

Columbo

[drstrange169]

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

Having your story disputed by a policeman, isn't exactly a rosy alternative;-)

[drstrange169]

>>(Hary D) 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.

>> Christer) But I posited no such scenario. <<

What Christer actually wrote,

"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 "ThereŽs an officer, IŽll tell him what we found, so you just walk ahead and IŽll catch up with you!"

In what alternate universe does mean they split up?

[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.

[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]

>>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]

>>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]

??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

[Harry D]

[B]Only you donŽt 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.