Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

>>Now that I agree with, I've been misquoted more times than I care to count.<<

We've seen several examples of Christer misquoting in his last few posts;-)

[GUT]

>>Now that I agree with, I've been misquoted more times than I care to count.<<

We've seen several examples of Christer misquoting in his last few posts;-)

I meant in newspapers.

But yes on Casebook too.

[drstrange169]

What, no tv stations taken you out of context?
Remind me to send one of our crews around.

[GUT]

What, no tv stations taken you out of context?
Remind me to send one of our crews around.

Seldom get my ugly mug on tv

[Fisherman]

As far as newspapers interviews are concerned and the acceptance for what is contained in them as being correct. I am not going into the primary and secondary source issue that has been done to death, but I will say that as someone who over the years has given numerous press interviews only to find that when the interview is published it sometimes differs significantly from the original interview.

So that is why I continue to say that newspaper articles should be treated with caution and their contents not readily accepted as being correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesnt always tell the truth"

No qualms - you are correct on this score. However, when newspaper articles are the ONLY source there is, then one has to make sense of what is available.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

>>He was asked if he had seen anybody LEAVE THE SPOT SO AS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION!<<

Wrong yet again I'm afraid, Christer. We don't know what Mizen was asked.

Then how do you know that I am wrong...?

The wording we have is that he was asked whether he had seen anybody leave the spot to attract attention. Sure enough, there may have been semantic differences involved, but the character of the question is such as to make me think that he was asked something like "Did you see anybody leave the spot to attract attention" or perhaps "Did you see anyone running away from Bucks Row".

Any which way, there is no need whatseover to speculate that the wording would have called for Mizen to tell about the carmen, who acted in the opposite way: they did NOT leave the spot or run away so as to attract attention.

An unknown reporter wrote of Thain and Mizen jointly,

"These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention ..."

Obviously as a reporter yourself, you must understand the significance of quotation marks and the difference between them being used for a direct quote as opposed to a journalist choosing to paraphrase a person's actual words.

Oh, I know a lot as a reporter - far more than you do, I would surmise. Thatīs why I am saying that the character of the question should tell us that the PC:s were asked about people fleeing the scene.

>>He was NOT asked if he met anybody in Bucks Row.<<

Since you capitalised the word "NOT" you must know what he was asked .

Yes, he was asked whether he had seen anybody leave the murder spot so as to attract attention.

If you wish to dream up a hundred other suggestions, be my guest. Thatīs where YOUR expertise lies, not mine.

Feel free to share.

Thanks, but no thanks. I would much rather prolong the VERY interesting discussion you inititated about how Mizen could have been told by the carmen that they found the body and STILL entertain an idea that Neil could have found it before them.

Could you elaborate on that ingenious suggestion?

[Fisherman]

>>Now that I agree with, I've been misquoted more times than I care to count.<<

We've seen several examples of Christer misquoting in his last few posts;-)

Donīt even go there. Anybody but you is okay. But not you.

[Trevor Marriott]

No qualms - you are correct on this score. However, when newspaper articles are the ONLY source there is, then one has to make sense of what is available.

You are right, but how do you decide which are right, and which are wrong. Human nature will tell you to lean towards the article which perhaps favours a specific argument.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Fisherman]

You are right, but how do you decide which are right, and which are wrong. Human nature will tell you to lean towards the article which perhaps favours a specific argument.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesn't always tell the truth"

The same way I suspect you do - by weighing them together as best as I can. As for human nature, it is something thaat adhers to all of us, and we are all prone to make mistakes. Those of us who realize this will generally stand a better chance to stay objective than the rest.

If you take a look at my upcoming post, you will get an idea about how I think it should be done.

[Fisherman]

Letīs look at what Mizen said when it comes to the information he stated to have been given about who had found the body in Bucks Row.

a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
Daily News

a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.
Daily Telegraph

a carman, passing by in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
East London Observer

a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there.
The Echo

A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.
The Evening News

a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there.
Illustrated Police News

I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
Morning Advertiser

man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there.
The Star

a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there.
The Times

Question number one:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere kept the information that he himself had found the body from Mizen?

Answer:
Yes, each and every one of them seems to support that notion. It is spoken of a PC who had summoned Mizen, it is said that Mizen was wanted in Buckīs row, presumably by that policeman, and it is stated that Lechmere claimed that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

Question number two:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere told Mizen that he himself had been the finder of the body of Polly Nichols?

Answer:
No, not a single paper supprts that notion. They instead point to how the carman, according to Mizen, had stated that a woman had been found in Bucks Row, and that a policeman had requested Mizens (or any other PC:s) support, leaving the reader to conclude that this PC was the finder of the body.

Now, if Lechmere had told Mizen that he himself was the finder, and if Mizen was reporting matters correctly, I would have wanted the wording to be "You are needed in Bucks Row. I found a woman lying there, who may weel be dead."

But none of the papers have any wording like that at all when reporting the testimony of Jonas Mizen.

PS. Trevor, can you see now how I do the maths here? Can you understand why I am suspicious of the carman and his behaviour? Can you see why James Scobie said that a jury would not like him?

[Trevor Marriott]

Letīs look at what Mizen said when it comes to the information he stated to have been given about who had found the body in Bucks Row.

a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
Daily News

a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying.
Daily Telegraph

a carman, passing by in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."
East London Observer

a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there.
The Echo

A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.
The Evening News

a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there.
Illustrated Police News

I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
Morning Advertiser

man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there.
The Star

a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there.
The Times

Question number one:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere kept the information that he himself had found the body from Mizen?

Answer:
Yes, each and every one of them seems to support that notion. It is spoken of a PC who had summoned Mizen, it is said that Mizen was wanted in Buckīs row, presumably by that policeman, and it is stated that Lechmere claimed that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

Question number two:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere told Mizen that he himself had been the finder of the body of Polly Nichols?

Answer:
No, not a single paper supprts that notion. They instead point to how the carman, according to Mizen, had stated that a woman had been found in Bucks Row, and that a policeman had requested Mizens (or any other PC:s) support, leaving the reader to conclude that this PC was the finder of the body.

Now, if Lechmere had told Mizen that he himself was the finder, and if Mizen was reporting matters correctly, I would have wanted the wording to be "You are needed in Bucks Row. I found a woman lying there, who may weel be dead."

But none of the papers have any wording like that at all when reporting the testimony of Jonas Mizen.

PS. Trevor, can you see now how I do the maths here? Can you understand why I am suspicious of the carman and his behaviour? Can you see why James Scobie said that a jury would not like him?

Ok
So out of that list of newspaper reports which do you think is correct, and how can you prove it to be correct.

Because for example even if the Times reporter was sitting in court taking notes, who is to say he didn't make a mistake etc. That is why I have little faith in the use of newspaper articles in this Ripper mystery.

The problem is that with these newspaper articles just two words misquoted can change the whole interpretation of that article which is what has happened is it not?

If Scobie was given a mish mash of newspaper reports showing the errors I can see why he would have said that, because they all show errors which may not have been attributable to Cross, and so in reality Cross may have not lied.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[MrBarnett]

Fish,

As far as we know, the inquest jury at the time didn't have an issue with the discrepancy. And bear in mind, this was the same jury that 'badgered' Henry Tomkins about where he and Britten had taken their break.

Gary

[David Orsam]

It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.

It's not correct to say "The onus is no Mizen to substantiate that claim with evidence". There is no onus on him at all but, in any event, he DID give his evidence under oath about what Cross said to him. That was the only duty Mizen had to fulfil and he did it.

While Cross, like anyone else, is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty that does not mean that he is entitled to be considered free of suspicion. There is nothing in English law which says that people who have not been proven guilty of a crime cannot be suspected of having committed it. So your post is wrong in a number of material respects.

[David Orsam]

Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.

I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Ok
So out of that list of newspaper reports which do you think is correct, and how can you prove it to be correct.

You should be well aware by now that none of the paper reports can be "proven correct", Trevor. We must look for consistency of reporting - the same sort of report in many papers, unrelated to each other - and consistency with the other known facts, surrounding the case.


If Scobie was given a mish mash of newspaper reports showing the errors I can see why he would have said that, because they all show errors which may not have been attributable to Cross, and so in reality Cross may have not lied.

Iīm sure Scobie knows how to evaluate evidence - it is his job.