Our Charles Cross

[Bridewell]

Might the reason that Lechmere used the Cross name at the Nichols inquest be that he had to take time off work from Pickfords in order to attend - and knew that they would be checking on him under that name? That seems more plausible than his choosing, for nefarious ends, an alias name to which he was already linked in the historical record.

[Elamarna]

I think this may have been CAL’s son:

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=30934

Interesting find.

[MrBarnett]

A lunatic named Lechmere

I think this may have been CAL’s son:

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=30934

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am through with this for some time - I can stand only so much crap over a period of time, and so I´m off.

This post will be my last for some time. Here is the material you ask for.

You wrote:

This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.)


This post arrived after I had explained carefully that there were Eastenders who disliked the police and distrusted them. There was talk of a hatred of the police here. So I grew somewhat tired and posted this in response:

In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.


To which you responded :

And now, in your utter desperation, you are seeking to claim that all Eastenders were such heartless, uncaring b%^**@*s, that they wouldn’t have informed a police officer.


So this is it - I point out that the East End was not police-friendly, and that we could not work from an assumption that any Eastender would "doubtlessly" contact the police, whereupon you said that I was seeking to claim that all Eaastenders were so heartless and uncaring that they would not have contacted the police.

An important factual marker was thus turned into a lie about me that painted me out as totally inept to make a fair and balanced call.

This incidentally came two pages after where you had said
"Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'".

As if I had ever said anything at all even remotely like that. Which I of course had not.

So I answered you:

So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.

You need to stop now, it´s running over the brim.

Maybe you can now see what I mean? Regardless of how perceptive you are in that area, I wish you the fairest of luck with your efforts out here in the future.

Me, I will do something else for a while.

As you have decided to omit the part of my post where I accepted the possibilty that Paul might not have suggested going for a police officer (I also even accepted that Paul might have just walked on) I think it’s only fair that I mention it yet again to show that I was presenting an unbiased view of all options.

Quibbling is just pointless.

I used the word ‘undoubtedly’ which was perhaps too strong a word. ‘Overwhelmingly likely’ would probably have been a better choice.

I think that I did nothing wrong in interpreting your use of the phrase ‘copper hating East End’ as an attempt to strengthen the likelihood of there being no police involvement.

This is nitpicking as a distraction.

If I listed all the times that you had misrepresented me and others I would have little time for anything else. I could also add of course “how many times have I called you ignorant or stupid?” You can search the posts as much as you like Fish. But you will find occasions when you have used those inappropriate terms about me.

You persist in climbing onto that high horse. And, as ever, when things are getting tough in Lechmere Land and Steve is undoubtedly beating you in a debate on the Mizen testimony thread you are ‘off’ again. It is transparently you who continue to make these debates personal. I have even, a few days ago, been complimentary about you and your knowledge and yet you still have the same condescending and irate attitude toward me.

I can’t see things changing no matter how much I hope that they will.

[Fisherman]

You can either quote it or give me the post number as I can’t find it.

I am through with this for some time - I can stand only so much crap over a period of time, and so I´m off.

This post will be my last for some time. Here is the material you ask for.

You wrote:

This option for a guilty CL surely would be preferable to calling someone over who would undoubtedly suggest that they find a constable with CL in possession of the murder weapon and ‘possibly’ with Nichols blood on him (in the dark he couldn’t be certain of being completely blood-free.)


This post arrived after I had explained carefully that there were Eastenders who disliked the police and distrusted them. There was talk of a hatred of the police here. So I grew somewhat tired and posted this in response:

In your world, any person in the copper-hating East End would "undoubtedly suggest" that they go searching for a constable, in spite of how they did not even know that there was a crime involved.


To which you responded :

And now, in your utter desperation, you are seeking to claim that all Eastenders were such heartless, uncaring b%^**@*s, that they wouldn’t have informed a police officer.


So this is it - I point out that the East End was not police-friendly, and that we could not work from an assumption that any Eastender would "doubtlessly" contact the police, whereupon you said that I was seeking to claim that all Eaastenders were so heartless and uncaring that they would not have contacted the police.

An important factual marker was thus turned into a lie about me that painted me out as totally inept to make a fair and balanced call.

This incidentally came two pages after where you had said
"Only you could consider getting away scot free 'reckless and stupid'".

As if I had ever said anything at all even remotely like that. Which I of course had not.

So I answered you:

So all we have is one more example of you misrepresenting me.

You need to stop now, it´s running over the brim.

Maybe you can now see what I mean? Regardless of how perceptive you are in that area, I wish you the fairest of luck with your efforts out here in the future.

Me, I will do something else for a while.

[Elamarna]

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.

When are you going to stop this semantic nonsense?

In Post #6 you listed 4 points. The second of which was Mizen saw blood.
You then listed that point in the accounts of the two papers.

Therefore. It is very clear, that at that point you claimed both papers mentioned that.

That since that posting a U turn has been carried out, and you say that was not what you meant is neither here nor there.
The fact remains the post said clearly that both papers mentioned the bleeding in their reports when they did not.

Its that simple, that clear


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can either quote it or give me the post number as I can’t find it.

[Fisherman]

More misrepresentation.

If you go back to that specific point.

You made the above claim previously and at the time I pointed out to you that in one of my previous posts I had listed the possible outcomes of CL calling Paul’s attention to the body. One of those points was in fact that Paul might not have suggested going for a Constable.

I was also stressing that we couldn’t stereotype all Eastender’s and assume that they wouldn’t want anything to do with the law.

And so, as anyone can see, this shows that I looked at all possibilities (or at least all that I could think of) and presented a 100% unbiased opinion.

This facts show that I am correct. Therefore Fish, you must be.......

Why would you stress that we cannot stereotype all Eastenders - when I did no such thing? And do you deny that you started your post by claiming that I had stated that no Eastender would help the police?

Shall I fetch the post up and quote it? Is that what you are asking for?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

More misrepresentation.

If you go back to that specific point.

You made the above claim previously and at the time I pointed out to you that in one of my previous posts I had listed the possible outcomes of CL calling Paul’s attention to the body. One of those points was in fact that Paul might not have suggested going for a Constable.

I was also stressing that we couldn’t stereotype all Eastender’s and assume that they wouldn’t want anything to do with the law.

And so, as anyone can see, this shows that I looked at all possibilities (or at least all that I could think of) and presented a 100% unbiased opinion.

This facts show that I am correct. Therefore Fish, you must be.......

[John Wheat]

Charles Cross was a witness not a suspect.

[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.

[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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

[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.

That´s 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, it´s 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

[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, it´s 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.