Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

>>(Hary D) The scenario you posited (i.e. Lechmere & Paul splitting up) is exactly what the killer would've wanted, that is to get the hell out of there before he can incriminate himself.

>> Christer) But I posited no such scenario. <<

What Christer actually wrote,

"My belief is that they - on Pauls suggestion - agreed to go looking for a PC, and when they saw Mizen, I think that Lechmere said "There´s an officer, I´ll tell him what we found, so you just walk ahead and I´ll catch up with you!"

In what alternate universe does mean they split up?

[drstrange169]

>>Therefore, whether he was innocent or guilty, he would have been taking a big risk by allowing Paul to go in search of a police officer by himself, because he couldn't be sure what he might say.
...
That certainly wouldn't have been what Cross would have wanted!<<

Having your story disputed by a policeman, isn't exactly a rosy alternative;-)

[Columbo]

I don't usually pass judgement but the fact is Cross only needed to get away from Paul. He didn't need to talk to the cops. He was in no danger of getting caught if he simply walked away from Paul. We can word it any way you like, but expert opinions mean nothing this far out so it becomes a very uninformed opinion since there is no way to validate it.

Columbo

[GUT]

I don't usually pass judgement but the fact is Cross only needed to get away from Paul. He didn't need to talk to the cops. He was in no danger of getting caught if he simply walked away from Paul. We can word it any way you like, but expert opinions mean nothing this far out so it becomes a very uninformed opinion since there is no way to validate it.

Columbo

And any expert opinion, unless he is also a student of the case, is only as good as the information he is given.

In a Court the first thing an expert does is tells you what his opinion is based on, you show that to be wrong and his opinion is worthless.

[drstrange169]

The difficulty he has is that he's been seen near to a dead body by a witness (Paul).

The key point here is, Xmere chose to be seen, so presumably he didn't consider it a difficulty.

>>Nor can he know for certain whether Paul suspects him of any wrongdoing.<<

Certain? No, but since Paul's Lloyds interview gives not even the slightest hint of attributing guilt to Xmere, it would have seemed a pretty safe bet.

In fact that's one of the points I've always found odd. Why didn't give any hint of suspicion to either the newspaper or the inquest?

[drstrange169]

>>And any expert opinion, unless he is also a student of the case, is only as good as the information he is given. In a Court the first thing an expert does is tells you what his opinion is based on, you show that to be wrong and his opinion is worthless.<<

Bingo! Or as we used to say, Housey, Housey.

[GUT]

>>And any expert opinion, unless he is also a student of the case, is only as good as the information he is given. In a Court the first thing an expert does is tells you what his opinion is based on, you show that to be wrong and his opinion is worthless.<<

Bingo! Or as we used to say, Housey, Housey.

And we can but assume they were provided the same as viewers of the documentary, things like Paul finding Cross crouched over the dead body, for example.

[drstrange169]

Indeed.

And the most obvious question, since Scobie is a renowned defence Q.C., why wasn't he asked about the chances of Xmere being not guilty in his expert opinion??

[GUT]

Indeed.

And the most obvious question, since Scobie is a renowned defence Q.C., why wasn't he asked about the chances of Xmere being not guilty in his expert opinion??

Wouldn't have done much for the doco......

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

Not doing too well are you Christer?

I am doing very fine. And I note that you are still avoiding to admit that what you wrote was, and I quote ad verbatim:

"Not so, even if the two carmen didn’t mention another PC, Mizen had no obvious reason to suppose Neil could not have been the first to discover Mrs. Nichols body."

THIS is what you said in your post. I have asked for an explanation as to how this could have happened, but I am seeing no such explanation coming forward.

So I am asking for it again.

You lied in your TV show as I've already pointed out.

A rather reckless accusation, but coming from you, there is no need to worry about it. It´s just your level of debating.

Difference is, honest people acknowledge their errors.

Like how you avoid answering the question above, I take it? And like how you said that I am reluctent to admit that Andy Griffiths said that he saw nothing strange in how Lechmere approached Paul - forgetting that I am the one who have told you this?
Your contributions do stand out at times, Dusty.

The actual quotes are,

"Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up."

" It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately."

"He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up."

"... witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else. "

"A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted? Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person."

You do seem to have an obsession we altering quotes, don't you?

I clearly pointed out that the passage within quotation marks respresents how I think the conversation would have gone down. It is a totally accepted method of writing. But you may be unaware of this too.

The one and only interesting thing here is that you falsely claim that Mizen denied having knocked people up after Lechmere spoke to him, and it is abundantly clear that this is not true, since Mizen qualified the matter by saying that he finished one knocking-up errand before he went to Bucks Row.
Exactly how he worded it is something we cannot establish, but we do have the knowledge that he did.

That means that you are not at liberty to falsely lead on that he did not. The quotations that leave out Mizens qualification are not complete quotations. And even if you have a flair for half quotations, a flair for accepting the facts would be more becoming.

Cite the protocol, if you could , please.


I never said that Mizen broke it. You did. So YOU cite away. I can say from the outset that you are wrong and falsely leading on something that is not true, but you are going to have to try and clear yourself on your very own. Not that it is going to happen, but in order to get things in the correct order, you should at least be given the chance. Good luck!

But if Mizen was telling the truth, then he was only told that there was a woman lying in Bucks Row, and that there was already a PC attending to the errand.

Again, you are quote altering.

How can I be, when I am not even quoting?

What Mizen is actually reported as saying is,

"A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

or alternatively,

"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

The difference between your altered version and what was actually reported, is that Mizen had no idea of the urgency go the phantom Policeman's request.

Once more, I altered no version. I said that the information offered to Mizen involved how a woman was lying in Bucks Row, and that a PC was in place there. It is far from unreasonable to reason that this PC would have been tending to the errand as such. Unless you think otherwise?

That is how I think the evidence should be read.

Doesn't that just perfectly sum up your Xmere argument?

Ignore what was actually said and tell everybody what you think it should have said.

Does it not sum up any theory? That the ones ascribing to it read the evidence in a manner that casts suspicion on their suspect?
How is that in any way controversial, if I may ask?

If I had not qualified that I am speaking of my own interpretation of the evidence, you would have said "But that is no fact, it is just your speculation!"

Now that I say that myself, how come you have a problem with it?

It seems to me that your overriding goal is to try and paint me out as a malicious liar. The problem is, you are overegging the pudding. You are attacking quite trivial matters that should cause no concern at all. You even accuse me of hiding facts that you are only aware of because I have NOT hidden them, which makes for a rather pathetic line of debating.
And you are at the same time avoiding to deliver the answers you need to produce.

I sometimes think that it was because I pulled your pants down about the Emily Lechmere business that things have taken such a vicious turn. You really should try and shrug it off instead - we cannot all know everything, Dusty.

[Fisherman]

And any expert opinion, unless he is also a student of the case, is only as good as the information he is given.

In a Court the first thing an expert does is tells you what his opinion is based on, you show that to be wrong and his opinion is worthless.

It´s the same with criticism - it is only as good as the material it is based on.

[Fisherman]

And we can but assume they were provided the same as viewers of the documentary, things like Paul finding Cross crouched over the dead body, for example.

Since that was not in the written sources, why would you assume that? And why would you not assume that he was given the material I and Andy Griffiths was given? And why do you not look at the material that you can actually see in the documentary that he was given?

Perhaps beacuse that does not allow for malicious speculation?

[GUT]

Why then was it out to air with Paul finding Cross crouched over the body, if he was told something else?

[Fisherman]

Indeed.

And the most obvious question, since Scobie is a renowned defence Q.C., why wasn't he asked about the chances of Xmere being not guilty in his expert opinion??

You need to listen to what Scobie says:
"Piece it all together, and the prosecution has the most probative, powerful material for a court to use against individual suspects".

That does not exactly speak of a weak case, guaranteeing that Lechmere would get off the hook, does it?

Scobie adds that we are speaking of "a case good enough to put before the jury that suggests that he was the killer".

So there you are, Dusty.

Now, it should be recognized that the docu was not about finding as many excuses as possible for the carman and presenting all the alternative innocent explanations that could be thought of. It was about presenting Charles Lechmere as a suspect, and so the choice of material will be in line with that intention. Perplexing, I know, but that is the way it works.

However, Dusty, you have the great advantage of having a direct line to somebody who has seen many minutes of material from the Scobie interview, and so I can throw further light upon the matter.
The problem is that you distrust me and spek of me as a habitual liar, so no matter what I tell you, there is always the chance that you think I am once again falsifying and lying.

Of course, I DID tell you about how Griffiths did not think the meeting between Lechmere and Paul odd, and that may perhaps speak in favour of me being able to tell a truth at times? At least if we define passages that seemingly support Lechmere´s innnocence as truths whereas we regard passages that seem to incriminate him as lies?

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that I have seen material where Scobie says that Lechmere´s destiny in court, if there was a trial against him, would hinge on his answers to the questions that were put to him. Basically, that means that Scobie did not rule out that the carman could have had information to offer that would either clear him or at least enable him to stand trial without getting convicted.

And that is as it should be - we cannot convict an unheard person. However, as the errand stands, Scobies conviction was that Lechmere acted in a way that was suspicious and that a jury would dislike him for that. He also thought that there were way too many coincidences needed to clear the carman for it to be a viable suggestion.

Consequentually, he thought that the material involved in the accusation act was enough to make him feel that Lechmere was in all probability the killer.

[Fisherman]

Why then was it out to air with Paul finding Cross crouched over the body, if he was told something else?

The representation of how Lechmere bent over the dead body of Nichols was made by the film crew, and you should ask them, not me, exactly why it was done that way. Of course, the docu suggests that Lechmere was the killer, and in order to have been, he MUST have bent over Nichols. So it works as a suggestion, although as Edward and I pointed out immediately, we would not have done it the way it was done in the graphic presentation.
However, Scobie was given a thick, compiled file of information attaching to the case, and it would only be if the film crew maliciously fit a description into the material where they said that Lechmere was actually found crouching over the body that there would be a risk involved.

Did the crew know where Lechmere placed himself? Yes, they did. Did they present Andy Griffiths with a large and useful compilation of the case material in the shape of reports and paper articles? Yes, they did - it was the exact same material that I got, and it was clear, concise and full enough.

You can always reason that David McNab, the producer, took Scobie to the side and whispered outright lies into his ear, not only about the crouching but also about just about anything else that relates to the affair. If McNab did, then it would not matter if the file Scobie got was impeccable; it could always be reasoned that Scobies take on the case owed to fraudulent behavior on account of somebody involved in the productions just the same.

The only really interesting thing about that is that this is precisely what you lot boil it down to - on no evidence at all. THAT is where the relevance of this whole discussion lies, and THAT is where anybody reading this exchange have something to learn.