Our Charles Cross

[Fisherman]

Ask for a specific example and i will happily oblige.


Steve

Pick any of them, Steve. In what case have you used factual grounds to suggest an innocent explanation where I point to the possibility of a guily one?

Or is the factuality just one of "we know this has happened in other instances, so it could have happened here too"?

Is that what your factuality stretches to?

[Fisherman]

I appears you do not fully read what is posted in response to your own posts.
I refer to your post # 6 in the thread on Mizen's inquest statement, and my post's 7,8,9 &10.
I have followed this up with another post this evening on the same thread.


Steve

... where I have answered it, noticing that you used my vacation to claim that I "avoided" this.

Anything that rocks your boat, Steve ...

[Sam Flynn]

Pick any of them, Steve. In what case have you used factual grounds to suggest an innocent explanation where I point to the possibility of a guily one?

What had he to gain from doing so? What would he have been trying to hide by only giving his work address? Was he afraid that someone was going to come forward and say, "Yeah. That Charlie Cross from 32 Acacia Avenue is always running kids over"?

He was identified as a Pickfords driver, and that was good enough. The attribution of a sinister motivation is preposterous.

[Fisherman]

What had he to gain from doing so? What would he have been trying to hide by only giving his work address? Was he afraid that someone was going to come forward and say, "Yeah. That Charlie Cross from 32 Acacia Avenue is always running kids over"?

He was identified as a Pickfords driver, and that was good enough. The attribution of a sinister motivation is preposterous.

You are not answering or commenting on the part you quoted, Gareth. You quote a post where I speak to Steve about how he says that he has factual grounds for what he says out here (implying that somebody else has not).

But never mind! it is clear what you are saying anyhow.

I agree with you, as a matter of fact, to a degree at least. It would be wrong to assume that there was a sinister motive behind the lacking address.

Then again, I am not assuming that there was. I am saying that there MAy have been such a motive, not least since we have a possible correlation with the inquest material, where it seems the Star reporter could have gotten his home address from a clerk. If this was so, then we have two instances of sudden, violent death with a carman named Charles Cross involved. And in both instances, it seems possible that he omitted to give his home address, whereas others did.

Could be perfectly trivial, could be that the Star reporter was the only one interested in writing his name down in the article and so on and so forth - but it could also be that there WAS a sinister reason. And it IS a tad strange that there are all these things that are so very useful for anyone who makes a case against Lechmere.

But donīt think that I am saying that it is a proven thing that it had a sinister reason - others will take care of that for you, Iīm sure. It is a very common thing to misrepresent what I say like that. It seems like the lifeblood of the criticism aimed at the theory.

[Sam Flynn]

There MIGHT be all kinds of reasons for just about anything, but it usually boils down to the overwhelmingly likely one.

[MrBarnett]

Allen?

If your Sunday best (form-filling) name is Charles Allen Lechmere and your workaday one is Charlie Cross, what is the most likely name you would provide to a coroner?

From most to least likely, I'd say:

Charles Allen Lechmere aka Charles Cross
Charles Allen Lechmere
Charles Cross
Charles Allen Cross

For me the 'Allen' sits uncomfortably with the 'Cross'. He felt it necessary to give his middle name but not his real surname?

If an official asked me my name, I'd probably say Gary Barnett. If he asked me for my full name I'd add my middle name. At that point, if my birth cert actually said Gary Gobbledegook, I'm pretty sure I'd mention that.

[Elamarna]

Pick any of them, Steve. In what case have you used factual grounds to suggest an innocent explanation where I point to the possibility of a guily one?

Or is the factuality just one of "we know this has happened in other instances, so it could have happened here too"?

Is that what your factuality stretches to?

Give me an example of something i have claim is probably true, rather than just a possible alternative to one of your suggestions and i will supply evidence to make my view.


Steve

[Elamarna]

... where I have answered it, noticing that you used my vacation to claim that I "avoided" this.

Anything that rocks your boat, Steve ...

Again misleading, the post in question were posted over a week ago, 15th June.
You were not asked just when you were away for a day or two but on the 15th.
That you did not bother to reply is your choice.
However to claim that a holiday taken a week after the posts is being used to get at you, is just more of the same old tales of being treated unfairly, such as we both are ver0y well aware is untrue.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Give me an example of something i have claim is probably true, rather than just a possible alternative to one of your suggestions and i will supply evidence to make my view.


Steve

But it is not a question of you having said something is probably true, it is a question of you claiming that you lean against factual evidene whereas I do not.

And all along, it is instead a question of you suggesting alternative innocent explanations that have nothing at all in the way of evidence going for them.

Thatīs what I dislike. When somebody gets on his high horses and calims factual superiority, then that someone needs to be a lot better equipped for that trip than you are.

Example: Lechmere disagreed with Mizen about what he had said on the murder night. If Mizen was right, it furthermore applies that what Lechmere said, was a perfectly shaped phrasing to take him past the police unsearched.

Does that fact go away because you come up with the idea that Mizen could have lied? No. That is speculation only, which tells it apart from the facts of the case. It is of very limited value until proven.

See what I mean?

[Fisherman]

Again misleading, the post in question were posted over a week ago, 15th June.
You were not asked just when you were away for a day or two but on the 15th.
That you did not bother to reply is your choice.
However to claim that a holiday taken a week after the posts is being used to get at you, is just more of the same old tales of being treated unfairly, such as we both are ver0y well aware is untrue.


Steve

Well, itīs good to have it established that you entered this part of the debate with the prejudice that I am deceiving myself if I think I an be honest. After that, it is up to others to say whether that is a fair stance to work from or not, and if it has any influence on this particular debate, where - incidentally - you claim that I have said that the DT and the DN support me on the blood issue, although I have quoted in full exactly what they said so that anybody can check for themselves.

That is what your debating amounts to.

[Elamarna]

To save on time the last two posts #69 & 70 will be answered togeather.

But it is not a question of you having said something is probably true, it is a question of you claiming that you lean against factual evidene whereas I do not.

Not at all what I claim or suggest, indeed it's the exact opposite.

And all along, it is instead a question of you suggesting alternative innocent explanations that have nothing at all in the way of evidence going for them

If I have no source support, I clearly say so.

Thatīs what I dislike. When somebody gets on his high horses and calims factual superiority, then that someone needs to be a lot better equipped for that trip than you are.

I am fully prepared for any eventuality.

Example: Lechmere disagreed with Mizen about what he had said on the murder night. If Mizen was right, it furthermore applies that what Lechmere said, was a perfectly shaped phrasing to take him past the police unsearched.
Does that fact go away because you come up with the idea that Mizen could have lied? No. That is speculation only, which tells it apart from the facts of the case. It is of very limited value until proven.

No it is not speculation, it is based on source evidence, including that of Mizen himself.
Nor does not rely on Lechmere or Paul.
There is far more evidence to support the theory that Mizen lied, than there is to accept that his account is truthful.(which basically amounts to accepting what he says at the inquest).
Sorry the wait is so long.

See what I mean?

Not at all, not surprisingly as the arguments are basically flawed.

Well, itīs good to have it established that you entered this part of the debate with the prejudice that I am deceiving myself if I think I an be honest. After that, it is up to others to say whether that is a fair stance to work from or not, and if it has any influence on this particular debate, where - incidentally - you claim that I have said that the DT and the DN support me on the blood issue, although I have quoted in full exactly what they said so that anybody can check for themselves.
That is what your debating amounts to.

The debating ensures that facts are kept to, and that inaccuracies be they intentional or unintentionally are fully exposed and discussed.

The quotes given are indeed there, although they lack detail and are really only partial reports.
Many would of course just look at the summary where you list the order of events for each paper, rather than read every word of a quote.

However that in no way negates the point that the post clearly said that the DN and DS reported that Mizen had described bleeding.

Neither paper as you acknowledge said any such thing, in addition your order for both papers was 1-3-2. That is description after going for ambulance and thus in no way support your interpretation of the Echo.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Thatīs what I dislike. When somebody gets on his high horses and calims factual superiority,

[Fisherman]

Herlock, when I write that it is in no way certain that the Eastenders would have helped the police, since there was much disliking about them in the district, you claim that I have said that not a single Eastender would help the police.

If you need the point further proven, I can list a fair few other examples of the exact same thing where you misrepresent me very badly.

Working from those kinds of misrepresentations, I think you may want to be a bit more careful about judging who is factually sound.

[Fisherman]

To save on time the last two posts #69 & 70 will be answered togeather.



Not at all what I claim or suggest, indeed it's the exact opposite.



If I have no source support, I clearly say so.



I am fully prepared for any eventuality.



No it is not speculation, it is based on source evidence, including that of Mizen himself.
Nor does not rely on Lechmere or Paul.
There is far more evidence to support the theory that Mizen lied, than there is to accept that his account is truthful.(which basically amounts to accepting what he says at the inquest).
Sorry the wait is so long.




Not at all, not surprisingly as the arguments are basically flawed.




The debating ensures that facts are kept to, and that inaccuracies be they intentional or unintentionally are fully exposed and discussed.

The quotes given are indeed there, although they lack detail and are really only partial reports.
Many would of course just look at the summary where you list the order of events for each paper, rather than read every word of a quote.

However that in no way negates the point that the post clearly said that the DN and DS reported that Mizen had described bleeding.

Neither paper as you acknowledge said any such thing, in addition your order for both papers was 1-3-2. That is description after going for ambulance and thus in no way support your interpretation of the Echo.

Steve

You are welcome to provide a basis for your misgivings about the honesty of Jonas Mizen.

You are not equally welcome to say that my "post clearly said that the DN and DS reported that Mizen had described bleeding."

I never worded it like that, did I? I said that point 2 was placed in a certain spot, and I have explained to you that post 2 to me is the moment when Mizen found Neil by the body.

That is what my post says - and why. Admittedly, I should have worded point 2 better since it would have voided having you calling me untruthful, but there you are. Nowhere did I actually say "the DN nd the DT (not DS) reported that Mizen had described bleeding".

Make a meal of it or accept what I say.

[John Wheat]

Charles Cross was a witness not a suspect.