What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article;
OK, Steve. You have a methodological problem now. There is no data for Baxter knowing that and there is no data for Baxter not knowing that.
So "no reason to suppose" can not be deduced from nothing.
I.e. you can not deduce that there was a reason or that there was not a reason from nothing.
The Lloyds article said where the constable was on duty, from this information the identity of the constable in question was known if the article was in any way accurate about meeting a constable. This was a known established fact for the POLICE.
Mizen is called on 3rd, the day after the article, it seems reasonable that he was called at this point, as opposed to the 17th like Thain, to answer questions relating to that article as it was known it could only refer to him. Such also suggests that Lechmere did not just show up unexpectedly on the 3rd.
Such by the way has nothing to do with my work, I was just offering a suggestion to Robert.