Lechmere Continuation Thread

[John G]

It seems obvious that there is dissonance. Mizen gives one account, Cross another. Both cannot be true.

Which leaves us with several permutations of what happened.

1: Cross lied. A petty meaningless lie, but he lied.
2: Cross misspoke. No malice intended, the words just came out wrong.
3: Cross told the truth

Or
1: Mizen lied. No reason for him to, and certainly not about that of all things, but he did it anyway.
2: Mizen misremembered. He generally recalls being needed in a certain place, he shows up to find another cop there, he rewrites the dialogue in his head to reflect that, like we all do from time to time. Totally understandable given the circumstances.
3: Mizen told the truth

And then when asked about it on the stand,
1: Cross lied again about what he said
2: Cross had no memory of saying what he said, and since he didn't remember seeing a cop, can't think why he would have said such a thing
3: Cross told the truth
or
1: Mizen lied about what was said to him
2: Mizen sincerely remembers Cross saying something that Cross really didn't say.
3: Mizen told the truth

Or both men both lied a little and got it wrong a little.

Does that seem to sum it up?

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

[David Orsam]

Does that seem to sum it up?

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.

[GUT]

It seems obvious that there is dissonance. Mizen gives one account, Cross another. Both cannot be true.

Which leaves us with several permutations of what happened.

1: Cross lied. A petty meaningless lie, but he lied.
2: Cross misspoke. No malice intended, the words just came out wrong.
3: Cross told the truth

Or
1: Mizen lied. No reason for him to, and certainly not about that of all things, but he did it anyway.
2: Mizen misremembered. He generally recalls being needed in a certain place, he shows up to find another cop there, he rewrites the dialogue in his head to reflect that, like we all do from time to time. Totally understandable given the circumstances.
3: Mizen told the truth

And then when asked about it on the stand,
1: Cross lied again about what he said
2: Cross had no memory of saying what he said, and since he didn't remember seeing a cop, can't think why he would have said such a thing
3: Cross told the truth
or
1: Mizen lied about what was said to him
2: Mizen sincerely remembers Cross saying something that Cross really didn't say.
3: Mizen told the truth

Or both men both lied a little and got it wrong a little.

Does that seem to sum it up?

Yep, and I go for

3
2
2
2

[Errata]

It seems obvious that there is dissonance. Mizen gives one account, Cross another. Both cannot be true.

Which leaves us with several permutations of what happened.

1: Cross lied. A petty meaningless lie, but he lied.
2: Cross misspoke. No malice intended, the words just came out wrong.
3: Cross told the truth

Or
1: Mizen lied. No reason for him to, and certainly not about that of all things, but he did it anyway.
2: Mizen misremembered. He generally recalls being needed in a certain place, he shows up to find another cop there, he rewrites the dialogue in his head to reflect that, like we all do from time to time. Totally understandable given the circumstances.
3: Mizen told the truth

And then when asked about it on the stand,
1: Cross lied again about what he said
2: Cross had no memory of saying what he said, and since he didn't remember seeing a cop, can't think why he would have said such a thing
3: Cross told the truth
or
1: Mizen lied about what was said to him
2: Mizen sincerely remembers Cross saying something that Cross really didn't say.
3: Mizen told the truth

Or both men both lied a little and got it wrong a little.

Does that seem to sum it up?

[David Orsam]

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

There are two problems with your questions Pierre. Firstly, not a single one of them is responsive to my simple point that if Mizen's evidence is correct then Lechmere was lying. So there was no reason for you to address them to me, as opposed to anyone else on the board. You now tell me that you are only asking me these questions because you think I have 'ideas' on these issues and you think my answers will lead the discussion forward. Well forgive me Pierre because as far as I can recall you've never taken notice of a single thing I've said to you on this forum.

As for identifying the 'ridiculous' questions, I don't think number 10 can be beaten:

"What is the evidence that there was not an unknown policeman beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?"

I mean, you are asking for evidence of a negative. So you might as well ask "What evidence is there that there was not a little green man from Mars beside Polly Nichols in Buck's Row?". Alternatively (and more earth based): "What is the evidence that there was not an unknown butcher/doctor/slaughterman beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?". Alternatively "What is the evidence that Druitt/Kosminski/Tumblety was not beside Polly Nichols in Buck´s Row?". All these questions would be utterly ridiculous and if you can't see that then I certainly can't be bothered explaining the reason to you.

Other ridiculous questions (since you've invited me to identify them):

Number 1:

"What is the evidence that Lechmere knew that he himself was lying in court?"

How can anyone produce evidence of what was going on inside Lechmere's mind? And, in any case, if he was lying then, by definition, that is a deliberate untruth.

Number 2:

"What is the evidence that Lechmere did not know that he was lying in court?"

Equally ridiculous, if not more so, and frankly incomprehensible. The fact that you can ask such a question does make me wonder about what is going in Pierre World.

Numbers 3 to 6 aren't entirely ridiculous but you are asking for evidence where no such evidence exists and one can only put forward arguments one way or the other as to whether Lechmere or Mizen was lying or there was some kind of misunderstanding. So they are a bit ridiculous.

Number 7:

"What is the evidence that Lechmere and/or Paul had not said something else to Mizen on the night of the murder?"

Another ridiculous one. My answer would be that: There is no evidence that Lechmere and/or Paul had not said something else to Mizen on the night of the murder. With the double negative in that response good luck in working out what it means.

Number 8:

"What is the evidence that Lechmere did not give Mizen his name and adress when he and/or Paul met Mizen?"

Why would you even ask me this? When have I mentioned anything about Lechmere giving or not giving his name and address to Mizen? And why do you phrase it in the negative? Why not ask what the evidence is that Lechmere did give Mizen his name and address? The fact that you've phrased it in the negative means it goes into my 'ridiculous' category.

Number 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?"

The answer to this is so easy (i.e. none) that it definitely falls into the category of a ridiculous question and one that was a waste of time you asking and of me reading.

In conclusion, therefore, of your 10 questions, 6 are ridiculous and 4 are a bit ridiculous. Well done Pierre. A 60% result of fully ridiculous and a 100% result of fully or partly ridiculous. That's quite good going even by your standards.

[David Orsam]

David - by "lying", do you mean that it was intentional, and if so, what is the evidence?

Yes, Pierre, that is what a lie means by definition. The evidence is the evidence of PC Mizen at the Nichols inquest that Cross said to him that "he was wanted by a policeman".

If that evidence is correct, then Lechmere was lying (end of story) because Mizen was not wanted by a policeman.

I truly do not know what problem you have in comprehending this.

[Pierre]

Pierre as usual you have completely misunderstood the nature of the discussion into which you have interposed yourself.

I am not saying that Lechmere DID tell a lie to Mizen. Only that on the evidence of Mizen, taken at face value, Lechmere told a lie. Therefore there is some suspicion against Lechmere over and above the fact that he found the body.

I have to say though that some of your questions are ridiculous.

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

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388391]

As a general point, anyone involved in debating whether Mizen was mistaken, confused or lying - or whether Paul heard what Lechmere said or not - is missing the point of my post which is simply that, on the face of it, if Mizen was correct, Lechmere was lying.

David - by "lying", do you mean that it was intentional, and if so, what is the evidence?

[David Orsam]

As a general point, anyone involved in debating whether Mizen was mistaken, confused or lying - or whether Paul heard what Lechmere said or not - is missing the point of my post which is simply that, on the face of it, if Mizen was correct, Lechmere was lying.

If you guys want to repeat ad nauseam all the arguments that Lechmere wasn't lying then go ahead but please don't think you are in any way responding to my point that Mizen's evidence is, on its own, grounds for suspicion against Lechmere, even if there may be a perfectly good explanation which will negate the effect of that evidence.

[David Orsam]

The jury (or anyone) may draw other conclusions about the evidence, and the blood at the scene had been under some scrutiny right from the start. I would suggest that if the case reached trial there would be considerably more evidence given about the blood than that used at the Inquest – and I bet we would know exactly when Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene to the minute.

How is the above responsive to my post?

[David Orsam]

That's correct, he is not establishing anything, Mizen is giving corroborative evidence not revealing new information.

They don't want Mizen to add anything, they want the evidence to corroborate.

Why would the jury want Mizen to corroborate Neil's evidence? Do you think they didn't believe him?

[drstrange169]

>>Which night was Paul questioned?<<

Unfortunately, That's a hotly debated question. Nobody knows for sure.

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[drstrange169]

>>... 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.

[drstrange169]

>>... if Paul was questioned all night as you say, then is it fair to say Lechmere was questioned just as rigorously?<<

I wouldn't have thought so, but who knows?

Paul was "dragged out of bed in the middle of the night" and taken to the police station, so he would have copped it more than someone who went to the police and volunteered information, I would assume.