Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Abby Normal]

Hitler was a well thought of Führer by many.

Regards, Pierre

Post of the Year.

In Hell.

[drstrange169]

>> On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.<<

Which begs the question, why would the police take Xmere's word over one of their own, and an apparently a well regarded one of their own?

One of the things Xmerites have been very successful at, is deflecting people attention away from the facts.

This isn't a case of Xmere v Mizen.

There was a third party there, Robert Paul and Paul's court testimony and press interview mention nothing about another policeman wanting assistance.

Both Mizen and Xmere acknowledge that Paul was present during their conversation. Paul himself claims he was questioned all night about the incident.

Surely if there was any kind of doubt or discrepancies between Paul and Xmere's stories the police would have given Mizen "the benefit of the doubt"?

[MysterySinger]

Mizen mizheard. How about that. Which night was Paul questioned? Did he reach his place of work.

[GUT]

Mizen mizheard. How about that. Which night was Paul questioned? Did he reach his place of work.

Or even didn't hear but assumed.

So common.

[Columbo]

>> On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.<<

Which begs the question, why would the police take Xmere's word over one of their own, and an apparently a well regarded one of their own?

One of the things Xmerites have been very successful at, is deflecting people attention away from the facts.

This isn't a case of Xmere v Mizen.

There was a third party there, Robert Paul and Paul's court testimony and press interview mention nothing about another policeman wanting assistance.

Both Mizen and Xmere acknowledge that Paul was present during their conversation. Paul himself claims he was questioned all night about the incident.

Surely if there was any kind of doubt or discrepancies between Paul and Xmere's stories the police would have given Mizen "the benefit of the doubt"?

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

Columbo

[Columbo]

Post of the Year.

In Hell.

Yep, it's finally sunk to a new level.



Columbo

[harry]

Mr Lucky,
Cross was never a suspect in the Nichols murder.
A person does not have to be arrested before being thought a suspect.
The murder of Nichols was a common law crime in England..Under that law a person is considered innocent until proven guilty.There was no guilt established against Cross.Now you explain where I am wrong about that law, about Cross,and where I have mislead anyone,and I am talking about 1888.

[John G]

Interestingly the original default position on this point was that Mizen was such a good cop he must have taken the men's names down when they spoke to him – which was why poor innocent Charlie Cross gave a false name – it was just a spur of the moment decision. He was panicked about the gangs etc.

If anyone had suggested that Mizen had done anything wrong and not taken the men names there would be uproar from the 'don't think' brigade.

If you read Fish's article – even he unquestionably followed the ( at the time) standard version - Mizen took the men's names.

Why would he necessarily take the men's names? According to his evidence he was merely told that there was a woman "lying there". Now I would of thought that he might sensibly interpret that information as the woman was merely drunk, which presumably was a common occurrence. Moreover, if he did fail to follow proper procedure in these circumstances why wasn't he disciplined? I'm afraid that, once again, this is a case of the word of a sworn police officer against that of a man found with a dead body.

It's also worth pointing out that Lechmere stated in evidence that he hadn't noticed any injuries due to the poor lighting conditions. In fact, according to the Daily Telegraph, he told the inquest: " In his opinion deceased looked as though she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea there were any serious injuries." (Daily Telegraph, 1st September, 1888)

[John G]

>> On the face of it Lech lied. Got to give the benefit of the doubt to the policeman.<<

Which begs the question, why would the police take Xmere's word over one of their own, and an apparently a well regarded one of their own?

One of the things Xmerites have been very successful at, is deflecting people attention away from the facts.

This isn't a case of Xmere v Mizen.

There was a third party there, Robert Paul and Paul's court testimony and press interview mention nothing about another policeman wanting assistance.

Both Mizen and Xmere acknowledge that Paul was present during their conversation. Paul himself claims he was questioned all night about the incident.

Surely if there was any kind of doubt or discrepancies between Paul and Xmere's stories the police would have given Mizen "the benefit of the doubt"?

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

[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.

[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]

>>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]

>>Which night was Paul questioned?<<

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

[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?

[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?