Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

Because while the act of lying would not be meaningless, the actual misinformation contained in the lie really is. I mean, what is the point of saying "a cop needs you there" (obvious paraphrase) when no cop needs him there? Is a dead body insufficient reason for this cop to go check it out, but the request of another officer makes a difference? So it's an odd lie. One that doesn't do anything for the potential killer. It doesn't help the killer. It doesn't hurt the cops. It's just an odd lie.

So because the initial lie is insignificant, the subsequent lie is also pretty insignificant. Lying to cove up a previous lie is suspicious, but also totally normal. Something he could get out of easily with one of a dozen explanations. So again, an odd lie. He could have copped to saying it and explained it away, he didn't. He lied about not saying it. So again, we are left with an act that is significant, lying, but content that is kind of rubbish.

It raises no red flags for me, honestly. I'm still of the opinion that people are weird, and they sometimes do inexplicable generally harmless things five times a day. So thats me.

But as far as content goes, it really is a meaningless lie.

I strongly disagree. Firstly, you cannot assume that a killer/serial killer will act rationally in these circumstances:consider, for example, Sutcliffe and the Jean Jordan murder. Moreover, he might have been feeling paranoid, concerned that Paul might suspect him. Also consider that fact that, if had murdered Nichols, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to dispose of the murder weapon, which would, presumably, be still on his person. And then there's the fact that, at the inquest, he seemed to downplay the extent of Nichols' injuries, telling the inquest that he didn't believe that Nichols had any serious injuries, and was possibly in a "swoon"

In these circumstances if Lechmere had murdered Nichols he had every reason to lie in the way that he did. Thus, he wouldn't have wanted to return, with PC Mizen, to the body-because once Mizen became aware of the seriousness of the injuries he may have had to answer some uncomfortable questions and, worse, could have been asked to consent to a search.

By apparently downplaying the seriousness of the incident, and informing the officer that another policeman was already attendance, PC Mizen may have been under the impression that this wasn't the type of incident that merited his immediate attention and, just as importantly, he would have assumed that the other officer had already questioned Lechmere and was satisfied with his responses, i.e. to the extent that he was prepared to let him leave the scene of the crime.

Does this prove that Lechmere murdered Nichols? No. However, it demonstrates that he had every reason to lie to PC Mizen if he had something to hide.

[David Orsam]

You may think it's weak because you have no argument for it, but it has been proven already that the newspapers don't get it right and sometimes are so far off the mark it makes them useless. So if you want to trust all the newspapers wrote go ahead. It's all we have to go on unfortunately. Just because they printed doesn't make it true.

Newspapers do sometimes make mistakes when reporting court proceedings but on the whole they are correct, especially when there are a number of different reporters all reporting the same thing.

To dispute a newspaper report of an inquest simply because it is a newspaper report is absurd. Unless there is some kind of reason to believe part of a report is wrong, it is perfectly acceptable to rely on it as true. The authorities themselves relied on newspaper reporting of inquests in 1888. Reports from the Times and Telegraph were pretty much accepted as official inquest reports.

You really are way on the wrong lines here.

[David Orsam]

Let me answer your two responses with this:

I understand your argument just fine, but in this post above you say "the fact that it exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere".

The fact that what exists?

The fact that the possibility that Lechmere lied exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere.

In other words, because we can't discount the possibility that he did lie, we have to regard Lechmere with suspicion. Any other attitude in a criminal investigation would be perverse.

[David Orsam]

I took GUT's post "Or Cross forgot mentioning that" to mean that Cross forgot he had mentioned a policeman to Mizen when he spoke to him in passing, not necessarily that he forgot to add anything to his statement at the inquest.

But the lie I am talking about is that Cross lied about speaking to a policeman who supposedly summoned Mizen to Bucks Row. So whether Cross forgot at the inquest that he lied is neither here nor there.

Why did he mention a policeman to Mizen, but tell the authorities, "No, because I didn't see a policeman?" Maybe, as others have suggested, he did mention a policeman in order to get Mizen to hurry off, but simply forgot about this, and later told the truth when questioned. So-- was it an unintentional lie, as opposed to an intentional one?

I don't dispute that there might be reasons for him lying other than him being the murderer, and I have stated such a reason myself, but you are leaping ahead because the only point I'm making is that if he lied there is a reason for suspicion given that we don't actually know why he lied.

[Columbo]

Clearly not because you've missed out the possibility that Cross lied and it was a meaningful lie.

That's the most important possibility of all because the fact that it exists is a reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere.

As for all the other options, I may be banging my head against a brick wall, but I don't know why you've bothered setting them out because they are not relevant to the debate I was having with Harry, although perhaps you are engaged in a different debate.

Let me answer your two responses with this:

I understand your argument just fine, but in this post above you say "the fact that it exists is reason for suspicion to be cast against Lechmere".

The fact that what exists? because of the denial of Mizen and no real corroboration that Lechmere said it means we don't know "for a fact" that Lechmere told him he was needed. I haven't seen anything that says Paul agreed with Lechmere that he told the Mizen he was needed. Fisherman's theory is partially based on the assumption that Lechmere walked ahead of Paul and talked to Mizen out of earshot of Paul. So there is nothing other than a newspaper account that either said anything.

You may think it's weak because you have no argument for it, but it has been proven already that the newspapers don't get it right and sometimes are so far off the mark it makes them useless. So if you want to trust all the newspapers wrote go ahead. It's all we have to go on unfortunately. Just because they printed doesn't make it true.

Columbo

[Pcdunn]

Forgot he had mentioned...

Forgot to mention what?

If Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross told him there was a policeman in Bucks Row who was calling for him. There's nothing that Cross could have forgotten to mention which would change his statement from a lie to anything else.

I took GUT's post "Or Cross forgot mentioning that" to mean that Cross forgot he had mentioned a policeman to Mizen when he spoke to him in passing, not necessarily that he forgot to add anything to his statement at the inquest.

Why did he mention a policeman to Mizen, but tell the authorities, "No, because I didn't see a policeman?" Maybe, as others have suggested, he did mention a policeman in order to get Mizen to hurry off, but simply forgot about this, and later told the truth when questioned. So-- was it an unintentional lie, as opposed to an intentional one?

[David Orsam]

Or Cross forgot mentioning that.

Forgot to mention what?

If Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross told him there was a policeman in Bucks Row who was calling for him. There's nothing that Cross could have forgotten to mention which would change his statement from a lie to anything else.

[GUT]

Or Cross forgot mentioning that.

[David Orsam]

I do, however, find myself to be somewhat embarrassed by my unfamiliarity with the phrase 'false inversion'. Perhaps you might be so good as to explain....Regardless of logical arguments, why should Cross's testimony not be afforded the same latitude in terms of recall versus precise duplication?

What I mean by false inversion is that you can't turn around "If Mizen's evidence is correct, then Cross lied" into "If Cross's evidence is correct, then Mizen lied". To do so would be a false inversion. (I appreciate you didn't actually do this because you asked a question which is why I said it "would be" a false inversion).

I have already explained why Cross's testimony is different to Mizen's but I'll do it again.

If Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross told him there was a policeman wanting him in Buck's Row which means that Cross must have lied because there was no such policeman.

If, on the other hand, Cross's evidence is correct (and Mizen's is not) then Cross never said there was a policeman in Bucks Row. So Mizen either lied about what Cross said or he misheard him or he misunderstood him or he heard him correctly at the time but later recalled it wrong.

But, to repeat, if Mizen's evidence is correct there is no room for any misunderstanding or failure of recollection because it means that Cross did tell him there was a policeman wanting him in Bucks Row and there is no other explanation than that it was a lie.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, David.

I am comfortable enough with the terms 'deductive fallacy' and 'inverse error'. I do, however, find myself to be somewhat embarrassed by my unfamiliarity with the phrase 'false inversion'. Perhaps you might be so good as to explain.
You should note that I provided a question and a qualifier, rather than an absolute statement.
As you yourself have indicated in your reply, Mizen's evidence was his recollection of what Cross said to him, rather than an exact reproduction. Regardless of logical arguments, why should Cross's testimony not be afforded the same latitude in terms of recall versus precise duplication?

Yours, Caligo

[David Orsam]

If Cross told the truth, then did Mizen necessarily lie?

No, that would be a false inversion.

If Cross told the truth, then Mizen could have lied but he also could have been mistaken as to his recollection or his understanding at the time of what he was being told.

If Mizen told the truth, or rather, his evidence was correct, then Cross must have lied. That is because Mizen's evidence was about what Cross said to him whereas Cross's evidence was about what he said to Mizen (about which Mizen could only speak of his understanding and recollection).

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, David.

Such a summation would be a fair condensing of my reply.
It does not reflect my position in regard to the exactness of the personal recollections of that morning's events as presented by the witnesses at the inquest.
If we were to consider that the statements offered by Cross matched the truth then what might we think of the testimony given by Mizen?

If Cross told the truth, then did Mizen necessarily lie?

[David Orsam]

Hi, David.

If one were to accept that Mizen's statements at the inquest described only the pure and absolute truth as to the circumstances by which he was furnished the information regarding the existence of a body lying in Bucks Row, then one might indeed allow that the conflict between his and Cross's testimony can be resolved only by the acceptance that the narrative offered by Cross is unsound and that, in the context of your question and that evidence, Cross lied.

In other words, if Mizen's evidence is correct then Cross lied.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, David.

If one were to accept that Mizen's statements at the inquest described only the pure and absolute truth as to the circumstances by which he was furnished the information regarding the existence of a body lying in Bucks Row, then one might indeed allow that the conflict between his and Cross's testimony can be resolved only by the acceptance that the narrative offered by Cross is unsound and that, in the context of your question and that evidence, Cross lied.

[David Orsam]

Even "your wanted in Bucks row" and when he gets there Miz finds another copper, what does his brain translate Cross' words with in hindsight.

In which case, I have to repeat, Mizen's evidence is not correct.

The premise of my argument is that Mizen's evidence is correct.