Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

That is a very unscientific thing to say.

Well Pierre I was responding to a post dealing with reasons to suspect Lechmere of murder and suspicion is not a very scientific concept. It is a human concept.

So while robots probably don't understand the concept of suspicion, human beings do.

And you telling me that the use of the words 'on the face of it' is not 'scientific' is a waste of time because I was not writing a scientific post I was writing a post in English addressed to humans.

[David Orsam]

If Lechmere was lying, and he was not the killer, why was he lying - and WHEN?

He might simply have wanted to get to work because he was now running late and didn't want to have to take Mizen back to Bucks Row so pretended there was a police officer who had summoned him.

[David Orsam]

On the face of it, Mizen lied or misheard Lechmere.

The fact that you've given two alternative possibilities suggests that you are not talking about what we see on the face of it but what can be found beneath the surface.

On the face of it, you wouldn't expect a police officer to lie and there is no reason on the evidence that Mizen misheard anything.

So your obvious desire to magic away what on the police evidence is a lie is a strange one.

I suggest that if you were a detective in 1888 and simply discarded the possibility that Lechmere was a suspect on the basis that "someone had to find the body", and assumed that Mizen lied or misheard what Lechmere said, you would deserve to be dismissed from the force for incompetence.

[Harry D]

The fact that you've given two alternative possibilities suggests that you are not talking about what we see on the face of it but what can be found beneath the surface.

No, they are all equal possibilities.

On the face of it, you wouldn't expect a police officer to lie

Why? They do it all the time. Policemen are only human... well, most of the time. If PC Mizen had been that professional, he would've taken down details of the two men who approached him instead of letting them go on their merry way. And don't forget that PC Thain apparently lied about not telling the slaughter-men about the murder.

and there is no reason on the evidence that Mizen misheard anything.

And there's no evidence that Lechmere lied, since Paul should've been able to corroborate this if he did.

So your obvious desire to magic away what on the police evidence is a lie is a strange one.

Then why did the police seemingly give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt?

I suggest that if you were a detective in 1888 and simply discarded the possibility that Lechmere was a suspect on the basis that "someone had to find the body", and assumed that Mizen lied or misheard what Lechmere said, you would deserve to be dismissed from the force for incompetence.

I would need a lot more than a man finding the body on his way to work and a case of he said, she said.

[Pierre]

I'm aware of various possibilities, Pierre, but on the face of it, I repeat: on the face of it, let me put that in bold, on the face of it, and now in capital letters for the hard of reading, ON THE FACE OF IT, Lechmere did tell a lie to a police officer.

That is why I am saying suspicion attaches to Lechmere but suspicion is very different to proof and there may be an innocent explanation for what is, on the face of it, a lie to a police officer.

David. You seem to have a lot of ideas about what happened in the past, and you also seem to be certain about what happened. Are you also capable of answering these questions?

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?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, they are all equal possibilities.
Why? They do it all the time. Policemen are only human... well, most of the time. If PC Mizen had been that professional, he would've taken down details of the two men who approached him instead of letting them go on their merry way. And don't forget that PC Thain apparently lied about not telling the slaughter-men about the murder.
And there's no evidence that Lechmere lied, since Paul should've been able to corroborate this if he did.
Then why did the police seemingly give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt?

These are all arguments which ignore the fact that I am simply saying that on the face of it Lechmere told a lie to a police officer. Of course there could be a hundred possible explanations but I was simply responding to you saying that there are no reasons for suspicion against Lechmere. There is a reason, which is Mizen's evidence. It's perfectly possible that this can be explained away and Lechmere did not lie but on the fact of it he told a lie to a police officer as he left the scene and you can't magic that away.

Telling me that there is a possible explanation of the apparent lie is pointless because we are only talking about a suspicion here, not an actual case to accuse anyone of murder.

[David Orsam]

I would need a lot more than a man finding the body on his way to work and a case of he said, she said.

I don't think you understand the nature of what makes a person a suspect in a murder inquiry. Simply finding the body on its own will make someone a suspect in most cases, and they will need to be eliminated from the inquiry.

[David Orsam]

David. You seem to have a lot of ideas about what happened in the past, and you also seem to be certain about what happened. Are you also capable of answering these questions?

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.

[Abby Normal]

I'm with David on this one.
On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.

and first one to find the body is defacto going to be at the very least-a person of interest.

[John G]

PC Mizen was a sworn officer of the law with, as far as I know, an unblemished record. Lechmere, on the other hand, was a man found with a dead body. I would therefore have thought that greater weight should be given to the police officer's version of events, particularly as Lechmere had a possible motive for lying, whereas PC Mizen didn't.

This, of course, doesn't mean that Lechmere necessarily lied, or that he murdered Polly Nichols.

[John G]

I'm with David on this one.
On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.

and first one to find the body is defacto going to be at the very least-a person of interest.

Totally agree with you there, Abby. In fact, that's surely just common sense.

[David Orsam]

PC Mizen was a sworn officer of the law with, as far as I know, an unblemished record.

As to his record, I recently happened to note a couple of entries for PC 55 Mizen in Police Orders from 1885.

21 May 1885 - Mizen (and two others in H Division) commended by Judge and Jury at the Central Criminal Court for tact and ability in apprehending and bringing to justice a man for making counterfeit coin.

9 June 1885 - Mizen (and one other constable) recommended for a reward for apprehension of property after a warehouse break-in.

[John G]

As to his record, I recently happened to note a couple of entries for PC 55 Mizen in Police Orders from 1885.

21 May 1885 - Mizen (and two others in H Division) commended by Judge and Jury at the Central Criminal Court for tact and ability in apprehending and bringing to justice a man for making counterfeit coin.

9 June 1885 - Mizen (and one other constable) recommended for a reward for apprehension of property after a warehouse break-in.

Thanks for this, David. This clearly illustrates that PC Mizen was a very well-thought of police officer, and I therefore see no reason why it should be assumed he lied, whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.

[David Orsam]

whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.

He was certainly standing near a dead body when Paul entered Bucks Row.

[Harry D]

I don't think you understand the nature of what makes a person a suspect in a murder inquiry. Simply finding the body on its own will make someone a suspect in most cases, and they will need to be eliminated from the inquiry.

Of course, the first person to find the body needs to be checked out. I see no other reason to suspect Lechmere beyond this fact.

PC Mizen was a sworn officer of the law with, as far as I know, an unblemished record. Lechmere, on the other hand, was a man found with a dead body. I would therefore have thought that greater weight should be given to the police officer's version of events, particularly as Lechmere had a possible motive for lying, whereas PC Mizen didn't.

This, of course, doesn't mean that Lechmere necessarily lied, or that he murdered Polly Nichols.

So was PC Thain, but he denied telling the slaughtermen about the murder. Don't assume policemen are whiter than white and wouldn't cover their asses if the need arose. And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that Mizen lied, just that it's one man's word against another.