Lechmere Continuation Thread

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Harry D]

I didn't say we can take it as a fact that Lechmere lied. What I said was:

"On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body."

Note the words "On the face of it". The sworn evidence of a police officer at the inquest was to the effect that Lechmere lied to him (and then lied on oath at the inquest). That's why I made my post in response to your question "is there any other reason [than him finding the body] to suspect him of committing the crime?"

Suspicion is not proof.

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

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388259]

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 a very unscientific thing to say. I know that you do not have much understanding about how historical sources work. But using the concept "on the face of it" is very unscientific, since it has no scientific meaning. It says nothing about the validity of the concept of lie and nothing about how that concept, when explicated, could be connected to the reliability of the sources.

The historical fact is (a fact established from the earliest and most detailed sources) that we have two seemingly opposing statements at the inquest, one from Mizen and one from Lechmere. THE REASON for these objectivated statements is what you should discuss, using both internal and external source criticism, before you judge one of the statements as a "lie".

What are the consequences of an external source criticism, David? What, for example, is the function of the sources? And what does it mean that you do not have ANY ORIGINAL INQUEST SOURCE?

Alos, what does the situation imply, in which the primary source (not available to us) was produced? Again, you have the question about witnesses being sworn and therefore the first assumption is that they told the truth. How do that assumption connect, hypothetically, to the internal source criticism? IS there a tendency in any of the sources? Is there a tendency in the witness statements?

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.

I am absolutely convinced that Lechmere thought that he was telling the truth. How could he have done so and at the same time be a liar? I am also absolutely convinced that Mizen thought that he was telling the truth. How could he have thought this, if he was lying?

Me being convinced, on the other hand, is worth nothing.

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

[harry]

Mr Lucky.
Re your post 403,What have I made up?.It was Fisherman that first used the Prima Facia term.I do wish you would support your accusations with correct evidence.Had he said the police had enough to lay a charge,he may have been nearer the mark.There is a difference.Then my question may have beenw w hat was needed to lay a charge.Fisherman may have an answer.Do you?

[Columbo]

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.

Uh huh.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

It did not have to be a lie. It could have been a simple misunderstanding.

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.

[Pierre]

I didn't say we can take it as a fact that Lechmere lied. What I said was:

"On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body."

Note the words "On the face of it". The sworn evidence of a police officer at the inquest was to the effect that Lechmere lied to him (and then lied on oath at the inquest). That's why I made my post in response to your question "is there any other reason [than him finding the body] to suspect him of committing the crime?"

Suspicion is not proof.

It did not have to be a lie. It could have been a simple misunderstanding.