CL and Paul both had a good reason to lie to Mizen. Neither wanted to be late for work and so naturally wouldn't have wanted to hang around (they were both already late.) Of course I'm not claiming this to be a fact but it has to be at least a possibility.
However such does not have an impact on my ideas..
The story of being wanted by a policeman is only from after Neil's testimony on the 1st and probably after the Lloyds article of the 2nd.
I am more concerned with what happened according to the sources before then rather than what is said happened after.
No David,I am not making anything up,nor are my comments ridiculous.The problem is,your understanding of the subject matter is lacking.You do not know as much as you pretend to.You therefor rely on personnel insults.
I know what Mizens training would have been, what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.My beliefs are based on that knowledge,and that belief is that Mizen lied,and that he failed in his obligations to record details of his encounter with Cross and Paul.Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.
Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.
You can't even get your story straight Harry. On Thursday you told me:
"Now you will not find that principle defined in the police code,but it was a principle that Mizen should have been aware of.It was a principle of law."
Now you seem to have abandoned the claim that it was a principle of law and now are now saying that the principle IS in the police code despite having told me it isn't!
Prior to that you told me that your knowledge came "from my own experience and training" but now you say you know what Mizen's training would have been and what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.
You really are making it up as you go along Harry and this is not "personnel (sic) insults".
But if you are saying that a policeman's obligation in 1888 was to take particulars in non-criminal/non-accident cases please provide some authority. Because your own beliefs based on no evidence are not good enough.