Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Harry D]

If Cross/Lechmere said this, as Mizen recalled him doing, it was a lie (and Cross/Lechmere denied saying it).

If, indeed.

We can't take it for a fact that Lechmere lied. That was my point.

[Columbo]

If, indeed.

We can't take it for a fact that Lechmere lied. That was my point.

You're in big trouble when Fisherman gets back from the island of Dr. Moreau, or wherever he went.

Columbo

[Mr Lucky]

I didn't insert anything into your quote. I quoted you 100% accurately using the quote function.

What you said in full was:

"The inquests concern is with the death of Nichols and so in this case what the inquest is trying to establish here is that the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat. In this way Mizen corroborates what Neil had said on the first day and additionally refutes what Robert Paul had said in his remarkable statement published in Lloyds (Sunday 2/9/88) about the 'woman must have been there for some time'

"There would be no reason to ask Mizen whether she was dead when putting her on the ambulance as the doctor had already declared her dead by that point."

See Post 381

The part that I have highlighted in bold, with the use of the word "so", indicated to me that what you meant by the "inquests concern" being with the death of Nichols was that it was "trying to establish here that the women (sic) was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene". This is why I said you appear to mean "time of death" when you refer to the inquest's concern. That at least seems to be what your post means in plain English.

The problem I found with your post is that it seems to be based on the assumption that in asking Mizen about the blood, the person asking the question was trying to establish Mizen whether Nichols was already dead when he first saw her. But I would suggest that there might have been another reason for asking Mizen about the blood.

I do hope that is clear.

Clearly nothing I have said has made any reference to time, the Inquest was quite simply finding out whether Nichols was dead or alive - her actual state of being, when Mizen arrived on the scene. Thats why I used those words in plain English and made no mention of “time of death”. If I meant the “time of death” I would use the phrase “time of death”.

I do hope that is clear.

[Mr Lucky]

I have never been talking about throats in general. I have been asking you to explain how Mizen demonstrated that Nichols was dead by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat. I was doing so because you said: "the women was dead when Mizen arrived on the scene – when Neil was alone, which Mizen demonstrates by referencing the blood flowing from the wound in her throat". There is no need, therefore, for me to read the doctor's evidence from Saturday.

Not sure what you're pretending not to understand; we seem to have gone full circle. If you really don't understand why blood flowing from Nichols throat means she is dead then you do need to read Dr Llewellyn's testmony.

[John G]

No I don't know, and no one else does either, because the whole concept of “a suspect under English law” is a crock of nonsense that doesn't exist anywhere outside your imagination.

Nichols murderer was never tried . Fact

Nominate? - this isn't celebrity dancing on ice, and the rest is totally irrelevant , there were around twenty “suspects” for the Bucks-row murder and what did they have all in commen – absolutely nothing. So what value does the concept of a Buck's -row "suspect" actually have – absolutely nothing.

You're still the one who is making stuff up.

Twenty suspects for the Buck's Row murder? What were their names and addresses?

[John G]

Not sure what you're pretending not to understand; we seem to have gone full circle. If you really don't understand why blood flowing from Nichols throat means she is dead then you do need to read Dr Llewellyn's testmony.

If there was a rush of blood when the victim was discovered that could potentially indicate that blood was exiting the wound under pressure. If that happened then the heart would still beating so technically the victim would still be alive. Not that I believe she was.

By the way, once the heart stops beating then any blood exiting the body would do so under the influence of gravity; this would be observed as a slow trickle.

[David Orsam]

If, indeed.

We can't take it for a fact that Lechmere lied. That was my point.

I didn't say we can take it as a fact that Lechmere lied. What I said was:

"On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body."

Note the words "On the face of it". The sworn evidence of a police officer at the inquest was to the effect that Lechmere lied to him (and then lied on oath at the inquest). That's why I made my post in response to your question "is there any other reason [than him finding the body] to suspect him of committing the crime?"

Suspicion is not proof.

[David Orsam]

the Inquest was quite simply finding out whether Nichols was dead or alive - her actual state of being, when Mizen arrived on the scene

To cut to the chase, that is the exact point that I am challenging. Nothing that Mizen said would have helped the jury to establish whether Nichols was dead or alive when he arrived on the scene.

And, in any event, Neil had already given evidence about the blood he saw when he arrived on the scene (before Mizen) so Mizen, who was not a doctor, could have added nothing.

[David Orsam]

If you really don't understand why blood flowing from Nichols throat means she is dead then you do need to read Dr Llewellyn's testmony.

I'm not saying that Nichols wasn't dead. I'm saying that Mizen referencing blood flowing from a throat wound would not have assisted the jury in determining whether she was dead or not.

As you say, the jury already had the evidence of both Dr Llewellyn and Neil and would already have known that Nichols was dead when Mizen arrived. So I'm suggesting there might have been another reason for Mizen giving evidence about the blood.

[Pierre]

I didn't say we can take it as a fact that Lechmere lied. What I said was:

"On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body."

Note the words "On the face of it". The sworn evidence of a police officer at the inquest was to the effect that Lechmere lied to him (and then lied on oath at the inquest). That's why I made my post in response to your question "is there any other reason [than him finding the body] to suspect him of committing the crime?"

Suspicion is not proof.

It did not have to be a lie. It could have been a simple misunderstanding.

[David Orsam]

It did not have to be a lie. It could have been a simple misunderstanding.

I'm aware of various possibilities, Pierre, but on the face of it, I repeat: on the face of it, let me put that in bold, on the face of it, and now in capital letters for the hard of reading, ON THE FACE OF IT, Lechmere did tell a lie to a police officer.

That is why I am saying suspicion attaches to Lechmere but suspicion is very different to proof and there may be an innocent explanation for what is, on the face of it, a lie to a police officer.

[Columbo]

I'm aware of various possibilities, Pierre, but on the face of it, I repeat: on the face of it, let me put that in bold, on the face of it, and now in capital letters for the hard of reading, ON THE FACE OF IT, Lechmere did tell a lie to a police officer.

That is why I am saying suspicion attaches to Lechmere but suspicion is very different to proof and there may be an innocent explanation for what is, on the face of it, a lie to a police officer.

Uh huh.

Columbo

[harry]

Mr Lucky.
Re your post 403,What have I made up?.It was Fisherman that first used the Prima Facia term.I do wish you would support your accusations with correct evidence.Had he said the police had enough to lay a charge,he may have been nearer the mark.There is a difference.Then my question may have beenw w hat was needed to lay a charge.Fisherman may have an answer.Do you?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388259]

I'm aware of various possibilities, Pierre, but on the face of it, I repeat: on the face of it, let me put that in bold, on the face of it, and now in capital letters for the hard of reading, ON THE FACE OF IT, Lechmere did tell a lie to a police officer.

That is a very unscientific thing to say. I know that you do not have much understanding about how historical sources work. But using the concept "on the face of it" is very unscientific, since it has no scientific meaning. It says nothing about the validity of the concept of lie and nothing about how that concept, when explicated, could be connected to the reliability of the sources.

The historical fact is (a fact established from the earliest and most detailed sources) that we have two seemingly opposing statements at the inquest, one from Mizen and one from Lechmere. THE REASON for these objectivated statements is what you should discuss, using both internal and external source criticism, before you judge one of the statements as a "lie".

What are the consequences of an external source criticism, David? What, for example, is the function of the sources? And what does it mean that you do not have ANY ORIGINAL INQUEST SOURCE?

Alos, what does the situation imply, in which the primary source (not available to us) was produced? Again, you have the question about witnesses being sworn and therefore the first assumption is that they told the truth. How do that assumption connect, hypothetically, to the internal source criticism? IS there a tendency in any of the sources? Is there a tendency in the witness statements?

That is why I am saying suspicion attaches to Lechmere but suspicion is very different to proof and there may be an innocent explanation for what is, on the face of it, a lie to a police officer.

I am absolutely convinced that Lechmere thought that he was telling the truth. How could he have done so and at the same time be a liar? I am also absolutely convinced that Mizen thought that he was telling the truth. How could he have thought this, if he was lying?

Me being convinced, on the other hand, is worth nothing.

If Lechmere was lying, and he was not the killer, why was he lying - and WHEN?

[Harry D]

I didn't say we can take it as a fact that Lechmere lied. What I said was:

"On the face of it, he did lie to a police officer when leaving the scene of the crime, having found the body."

Note the words "On the face of it". The sworn evidence of a police officer at the inquest was to the effect that Lechmere lied to him (and then lied on oath at the inquest). That's why I made my post in response to your question "is there any other reason [than him finding the body] to suspect him of committing the crime?"

Suspicion is not proof.

On the face of it, Mizen lied or misheard Lechmere.