Lechmere Continuation Thread

[harry]

John G.
In fact I have quoted a principle of law that allows argument about any offence. "A person shall be considered innocent until proven guilty". It is the word considered,which most people leave out,that changes the way it operates.I always include the word considered.
The power of officers allows what an officer can do.Judges rules are guides to allow fair play.
Nothing I have posted stifles the scope of a murder investigation.I wish posters would realise that.

[Fisherman]

If you haven't accused Cross David,then obviously nothing was directed at you.

What is odd or suspicious Fisherman,about the behaviour of Cross?. He found a body,he sought help from a passing carman,he accompanied that person in seeking a policeman,he appeared at an inquest and gave his story.Very responsible behaviour in my opinion,devoid of anything suspicious or odd.It seems the authorities of that time were of that opinion also.

I don´t see how I could find something that would satisfy your demands on what is suspicious, Harry.

I can find a lot of things that OTHERS deem suspicious, though.

[Fisherman]

>>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?<<

I’d be more than happy to oblige, if I’d have written such a thing.
But as always, it’s just something you’ve made up.

Feel free to quote me, the post where I "initiated" a story of how Xmere and Paul told Mizen they were the first to find Mrs. Nichols, but Mizen refused to believe them.

Post 593 illustrates what I said, that you inititated a discussion 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:

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. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.

[David Orsam]

What is odd or suspicious Fisherman,about the behaviour of Cross?. He found a body,he sought help from a passing carman,he accompanied that person in seeking a policeman,he appeared at an inquest and gave his story.Very responsible behaviour in my opinion,devoid of anything suspicious or odd.

I appreciate you have addressed this post to Fisherman but I wanted to respond because I entirely agree with you Harry except that Cross also told a police officer as he left the area of the crime scene that he was wanted at the crime scene by another police officer, which was not true.

That's got to be suspicious behaviour hasn't it? If it happened of course but that was the evidence of the police officer, and as no-one wants to be arrogant, we can't dismiss that evidence out of hand can we?

[David Orsam]

It seems the authorities of that time were of that opinion also.

I would like to comment on what strikes me as an inconsistent approach by many posters in this forum (not necessarily Harry).

On the one hand, it is said, the answer to the inconsistency between Mizen and Cross is obvious. Cross told Mizen he was wanted in Bucks Row and when Mizen found Neil there he mis-remembered the conversation thinking that Cross had mentioned a policeman. So there's nothing to investigate here, it's all very easy to explain.

That's perfectly rational, sensible and intelligent thinking. It may well be the correct answer.

But if you think that, then might I suggest that there is a problem with also relying on the fact that the police did not seem to be suspicious of Cross at the time. For perhaps the police at the time also had this perfectly rational, sensible and intelligent thought and thus dismissed the inconsistency.

In other words, those posters who believe I am saying that the police were stupid or incompetent or unable "to find their backside with a mirror on a stick" can't also point to an obvious explanation for the inconsistency because that obvious explanation may well also explain why the police, quite understandably, did not entertain suspicions against Cross.

Today we can come up with any number of innocent reasons to explain the discrepancy of evidence but we cannot be certain any of them are correct and the default position is that we have a police officer who stated something in evidence which, if correct, means that Cross lied on the night of the murder.

[John G]

I think it a little odd that Cross wasn't at least considered a possible suspect., albeit perhaps not a very serious one. Okay, he was a bloke on his way to work, and therefore had a legitimate reason to be walking along Bucks Row. And, after all, who commits an horrific murder on their way to work anyway? Moreover, by approaching Paul, rather than, say, attempting to flee the scene, or cover up the victim's injuries before Paul arrived, he certainly didn't act like a typical murderer. Far from it.

Still...In addition to the possibility he might have lied to PC Mizen we have Dr Llewellyn's opinion that death would be almost instantaneous. Now, of course, we also have Paul's evidence that the victim might still have been breathing which, if correct, would suggest that she may have had her throat cut just seconds earlier (assuming Llewellyn was correct), which then makes it difficult to see how anyone else but Cross could have been the attacker, particularly as he didn't see, or hear, anyone else fleeing the scene. Of course, Paul may have been mistaken, as might Dr Llewellyn, but it surely suggests that, at the very least, Cross couldn't be completely exonerated, however minor any suspicion against him may be.

It's also odd that Wynne Baxter didn't seem to question the inconsistent accounts of Mizen and Cross, particularly as he robustly criticised witnesses at the Austin inquest who had given unreliable evidence, i e. they probably lied.

All in all, there appears to be a lot of unanswered questions.

[drstrange169]

>>Post 593 illustrates what I said, that you inititated a discussion 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: 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. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.<<

Point one: I was responding to what you wrote, I "initiated" nothing. Look up the word "initiate".

Point two: Nowhere in that post to I say or intimate that Paul and Xmere told Mizen they found the body.

Next ...

[drstrange169]

>>t's also odd that Wynne Baxter didn't seem to question the inconsistent accounts of Mizen and Cross, particularly as he robustly criticised witnesses at the Austin inquest who had given unreliable evidence, i e. they probably lied.<<

Actually, he did. Well maybe not "as robustly"

Mizen's testimony, as reported was confusing and misleading. Reading his testimony in some papers like the Daily Telegraph, normally a good source for inquest testimonies, you are left with the impression that Xmere was the only person in the street when the two met.

Baxter had to intervene and clarify the situation,

"The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?"

We also have the problem of "knocking up".
On the one hand we have Mizen denying he continued "knocking up" then admitted he did.

Reading the reports there is little doubt that Mizen was not an accurate witness.


>>All in all, there appears to be a lot of unanswered questions.<<

Amen to that.

[harry]

David,
Had your comment been, Íf Mizen could be proven to have told the truth,there would have been no objection from me.

John G,
Cross would have been a person of interest,and I do not believe anyone has stated it was impossible, for him, not to have killed Nichols. He is a very poor suspect though I will agree.

Fisherman,
I am not a hard person to satisfy.State the points you believe odd,and why you believe so.On discovering the body, Cross did what the more experienced Neil did,he sought help.Nothing odd there,nothing suspicious.
Now one might believe Cross suffered some shock at that time,a tempory state of indecision.Q uite understandable in the circumstances.So he just stood in the road,untill Paul arrived.Nothing odd or suspicious in that ,either.

[John G]

David,
Had your comment been, Íf Mizen could be proven to have told the truth,there would have been no objection from me.

John G,
Cross would have been a person of interest,and I do not believe anyone has stated it was impossible, for him, not to have killed Nichols. He is a very poor suspect though I will agree.

Fisherman,
I am not a hard person to satisfy.State the points you believe odd,and why you believe so.On discovering the body, Cross did what the more experienced Neil did,he sought help.Nothing odd there,nothing suspicious.
Now one might believe Cross suffered some shock at that time,a tempory state of indecision.Q uite understandable in the circumstances.So he just stood in the road,untill Paul arrived.Nothing odd or suspicious in that ,either.

Hi Harry,

Yes, person of interest is about right. Personally, I don't think there is enough evidence to have justified an arrest, and certainly insufficient evidence to have satisfied the magistrates at a committal hearing.

[David Orsam]

David,
Had your comment been, Íf Mizen could be proven to have told the truth,there would have been no objection from me.

I'll take that!

Another way of phrasing what you've said is: If Mizen's evidence was correct, then Cross lied when speaking to a police officer when walking from the crime scene; and if Cross lied when speaking to a police officer when walking from the crime scene, there is a legitimate reason to think that his behaviour was suspicious.

[Fisherman]

>>Post 593 illustrates what I said, that you inititated a discussion 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: 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. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.<<

Point one: I was responding to what you wrote, I "initiated" nothing. Look up the word "initiate".

Point two: Nowhere in that post to I say or intimate that Paul and Xmere told Mizen they found the body.

Next ...

That´s some interesting dribbling there. But let´s go with the basics, your post:

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. The truth would only have been apparent once he heard that Neil had denied there were two men involved. And according to the newspapers, he still denied it then, placing yet another question mark over Mizen's story.


This is where you step in it. There is no rational way that Mizen could or would supposed that Neil may have been the first to discover the body if the carmen did n ot mention the presence of another PC.
You are welcome to outline a scenario where such a thing would work.

[Fisherman]

John G: I think it a little odd that Cross wasn't at least considered a possible suspect., albeit perhaps not a very serious one. Okay, he was a bloke on his way to work, and therefore had a legitimate reason to be walking along Bucks Row. And, after all, who commits an horrific murder on their way to work anyway? Moreover, by approaching Paul, rather than, say, attempting to flee the scene, or cover up the victim's injuries before Paul arrived, he certainly didn't act like a typical murderer. Far from it.

But the wounds WERE covered up!

Still...In addition to the possibility he might have lied to PC Mizen we have Dr Llewellyn's opinion that death would be almost instantaneous. Now, of course, we also have Paul's evidence that the victim might still have been breathing which, if correct, would suggest that she may have had her throat cut just seconds earlier (assuming Llewellyn was correct), which then makes it difficult to see how anyone else but Cross could have been the attacker, particularly as he didn't see, or hear, anyone else fleeing the scene. Of course, Paul may have been mistaken, as might Dr Llewellyn, but it surely suggests that, at the very least, Cross couldn't be completely exonerated, however minor any suspicion against him may be.

All very true. And I would suggest that the circumstances would warrant significantly more than monor suspicion.

It's also odd that Wynne Baxter didn't seem to question the inconsistent accounts of Mizen and Cross, particularly as he robustly criticised witnesses at the Austin inquest who had given unreliable evidence, i e. they probably lied.

The question WHY Lechmere was not - as it seems - closely scrutinized is one of the most inteesting questions overall in the case.

All in all, there appears to be a lot of unanswered questions.

There is!

[Fisherman]

Reading the reports there is little doubt that Mizen was not an accurate witness.

Dear me. That is a totally unsubstainable and rather shocking statement.

[Fisherman]

harry:

Fisherman,
I am not a hard person to satisfy.

I was being nice to you, Harry.

State the points you believe odd,and why you believe so.

These points are all over the boards. They have been commented on you a thousand times.

On discovering the body, Cross did what the more experienced Neil did,he sought help.

Lechmere did not seek help when doscovering the body. He only did so as Paul arrived.

Nothing odd there,nothing suspicious.

Lechmere´s behaviour at the scene was odd in many a way - as has been described a thousand times.

Now one might believe Cross suffered some shock at that time,a tempory state of indecision. Q uite understandable in the circumstances.

Yes. But it is but one of the anomalies attaching to the carman.

So he just stood in the road,untill Paul arrived.Nothing odd or suspicious in that ,either.

That depends on what side of the road he came from.