Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."

In which case, Mizen's evidence is not correct.

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

And if Mizen's evidence is correct then Lechmere was lying.

[David Orsam]

B I mean, what is the point of saying "a cop needs you there" (obvious paraphrase) when no cop needs him there?

Well he is concealing from Mizen the fact that he found the body and that he (and Paul) have left a woman, unattended, lying on the street. Had Mizen known this he might have asked Cross and Paul to accompany him to where the body was lying. If Cross is the murderer then he is carrying a knife and might be discovered if the police decide to search him. If he is caught he is hung.

Is that meaningful enough for you?

[David Orsam]

Let's not forget this is a newspaper discrepancy, not an official inquest discrepancy. Argue people might on the accuracy of the reporting, but it's still not the official record.

That's weak. There's no reason to distrust the various newspaper reports on this point. Further, it's obvious that Mizen's evidence was correctly reported because Cross was specifically asked whether he mentioned a policeman to him.

[David Orsam]

On the face of it he may have lied, but it is not a fact that he lied.

Have you misunderstood the argument too Columbo? I can't for one moment understand why you felt the need to say that. No-one is saying that it is "a fact" he lied. But if Mizen's evidence is correct he did lie.

[drstrange169]

>>No it isn't. Where's the evidence that Paul corroborated Lechmere's account?<<

“They looked to see if there was a constable, but one was not to be seen …

Witness and the other man walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen.”

The Times

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Pierre.

You asked in #468 " 10. What is the evidence that there was not an unknown policeman beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?

If you have posted regarding this already and I have missed it, then I apologise.

You appear, in the asking of this question, to be making the suggestion that there is an unaccounted constable involved in some manner. Is it your proposal that this is the policeman that gave Lechmere and Paul an errand and thus sent them away from the scene?
Further to this, are you offering that the killer may have been either a policeman or had adopted clothing sufficient as to make himself appear such?

Yours, Caligo

[GUT]

Hi, all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
The precise wording need not be important. Such phrasing might easily introduce to P.C. Mizen the impression that a policeman had sent Lechmere and Co. to find assistance. Subsequently discovering P.C. Neil already at the scene would tend to confirm that impression. This would then lead to him offering the testimony he did at the inquest.
For Lechmere, he would know in his mind that he had never been sent by a policeman and that he had never stated as such. He may well not have considered it important to clear up any apparent misunderstanding regarding the matter.
Clearly, however, a sharp-minded Juryman noticed the discrepancy in the testimony, but Cross's answer seems to have ended the matter to the satisfaction of those in charge of the inquest, as the matter was not visited again.

Your, Caligo

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.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, all.

Would it not be reasonable to expect that Lechmere, having seen the body close up and believing it to be lifeless, might, upon meeting P.C. Mizen, say something like this: "A Policeman is wanted in Bucks Row, there is a woman lying on her back. She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."
The precise wording need not be important. Such phrasing might easily introduce to P.C. Mizen the impression that a policeman had sent Lechmere and Co. to find assistance. Subsequently discovering P.C. Neil already at the scene would tend to confirm that impression. This would then lead to him offering the testimony he did at the inquest.
For Lechmere, he would know in his mind that he had never been sent by a policeman and that he had never stated as such. He may well not have considered it important to clear up any apparent misunderstanding regarding the matter.
Clearly, however, a sharp-minded Juryman noticed the discrepancy in the testimony, but Cross's answer seems to have ended the matter to the satisfaction of those in charge of the inquest, as the matter was not visited again.

Your, Caligo

[Errata]

If Lechmere murdered Nichols why do you say his lie, in this context, would be meaningless?

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.

[Varqm]

How about the possibility that Cross was partly a mumbling idiot sometimes, especially on things he/we have no experience of.
According to some posters here witnesses who said the suspect was wearing a shirt of a certain color but it turned out to be a different color,the witnesses who were adamant the person was the murderer but DNA exonerated him,they are all murderers because they made a mistake.

[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.

On the face of it he may have lied, but it is not a fact that he lied. Let's not forget this is a newspaper discrepancy, not an official inquest discrepancy. Argue people might on the accuracy of the reporting, but it's still not the official record.

Columbo

[John G]

Really, David? "As usual"?

Stop posting those silly and belittling expressions, they still do not help the case and it only shows you are without scientific arguments.

Now, I asked you some questions, since I am convinced that you have ideas on this issues and I do think that your answers could lead the discussion forward.

Are you capable of answering these questions? If so:

1. What is the evidence that Lechmere knew that he himself was lying in court?
2. What is the evidence that Lechmere did not know that he was lying in court?
3. What is the evidence that Mizen did not lie?
4. What is the evidence that Mizen told the truth?
5. What is the evidence that Mizen had not heard Lechmere and/or Paul saying something else?
6. What is the evidence that Mizen had heard Lechmere and/or Paul say that another policeman wanted him in Buck´s Row?
7. What is the evidence that Lechmere and/or Paul had not said something else to Mizen on the night of the murder?
8. What is the evidence that Lechmere did not give Mizen his name and adress when he and/or Paul met Mizen?
9. What is the evidence that there was an unknown policeman beside Polly Nichols when Lechmere reached Buck´s Row on the night of the murder?
10. What is the evidence that there was not an unknown policeman beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?

I am also very interested in hearing which questions you think are "ridiculous" and exactly why. So tell me which ones and why, I might agree if you have relevant (scientific) arguments.

Regards, Pierre

You can't prove a negative. Thus, in respect of point 10, what is the evidence that there wasn't a spaceman from the Planet Zog beside Polly Nichols in Buck's Row?

[John G]

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.

Absolutely. I'm really at a loss as to why so many posters are struggling to understand a very simple argument.

[John G]

>>Did they take Lechmere's word over PC Mizen's? Where's the evidence for this?<<

They wouldn't have taken Xmere's word for it, they would have taken Xmere and Paul's word for it. Hard to argue with independent witnesses.Coroner Baxter's summation, Swanson's report and Abberline's report, all give Xmere and Paul's version of events.

But they probably just assumed there'd been a misunderstanding. PC Mizen wasn't subjected to disciplinary proceedings and there's not one iota of evidence to show that his superiors believed he lied. And why do you keep referring to Paul? At what point did he confirm Lechmere's version of events against PC Mizen's? Put simply, when did he confirm that Lechmere did not intimate to PC Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Bucks Row?

[John G]

>>... once again, this is a case of the word of a sworn police officer against that of a man found with a dead body.<<

Once again, this is a case of a sworn police officer against TWO independent witnesses;-)

Small point but, a hugely significant one.

As even Fisherman was forced to concede earlier in this thread, Mizen may well have not written down the encounter in his report, leaving him to piece together what was said a few days later.

No it isn't. Where's the evidence that Paul corroborated Lechmere's account?