If

[caz]

In BOTH scenarios, he would have reason to make haste, but it was only if the carman was truthful that he would have ended up in a situation where his arrival in Bucks Row could be the difference between life and death. In the other scnario, he could rely on a colleague already being in place, so although he meeded to get to Bucks Row pronto, he did not need to get there as pronto as in the first scenario.
How hard can it be? Surely, Caz, you can understand how that works?

Oh yes, I can understand how you make it work, Christer. You have admitted to looking at all the available info from the point of view that Lechmere killed Nichols and seeing what sort of case can be built. Clearly if he did kill her, and then felt the need or desire to come forward and confirm that he found the body first, not PC Neil, he'd have told as many lies at it would take to keep himself clear of suspicion.

Whatever Mizen was told, he does not come out of it smelling of roses. At best, he put a bit more knocking up before responding to a specific request for help from a fellow officer, when both the officer and the woman in question might have been facing, or shortly to face, a life or death situation for all Mizen knew. He certainly couldn't have known there was any time for the officer to fanny about taking personal details from the men before sending them. At worst, Mizen was told the woman was lying alone, possibly dead (and therefore possibly dying, or at least in potential danger from any rough sorts passing by) and he carried on knocking up after muttering "All right", without taking a single detail from either witness.

Either way, Mizen's response (as portrayed in Paul's press interview), followed by finding the woman horribly murdered and PC Neil in need of an ambulance for her, gave him a jolly good motive for playing down what he was told about the gravity of the situation to spare his blushes for a) not responding appropriately to a potentially life-threatening situation, and b) keeping quiet about the two men alerting him until 'outed' by one of them as the tardy PC.

I know full well that Mizen is not recorded as having said this, and so I was hoping that you would be able to see that I was exaggerating to clarify the message. But no - you think you havce caught me out lying about what Mizen said. Great!

Lechmere's message was short and sweet according to Mizen and didn't need to be exaggerated or clarified by you, let alone changed out of all recognition and turned into a saga that would better justify his seeming lack of urgency upon hearing it. I don't 'think' I have caught you out lying. You caught yourself out, by being 'creative' with the message to make it work for you.

Don´t get overenthusiastic, Caz - the ensuing scenario after leaving Bakers Row was more or less exactly along the lines Lechmere had foreshadowed. So why would Mizen think that the carman lied?

Oh come on, Christer. If Lechmere told him he was wanted by (apparently) PC Neil, he'd have soon learned that a) Neil didn't send the men to fetch him and b) the witness denied saying any such thing, making it clear that the man who had 'discovered' the victim had lied to a police officer shortly afterwards and had lied again at the inquest. Did Mizen not have the brains he was born with, or was it better for him not to make a fuss and put his own role under the spotlight again?

In the paper interview, yes. But we know that this interview IS lacking in the truth department. At the inquest, Paul said nothing at all about having spoken to Mizen himself. He said that "we" informed the PC.

Precisely. So Paul was an unreliable witness when it came to who said what to whom, and Lechmere knew it if he read the interview. Had he not come forward, Paul would have been an equally unreliable witness for who actually found the body first. He was jolly lucky that Lechmere popped up to confirm this part of his story, or he could have been suspected of lying to cover his tracks. He was acting like the perfect fall guy until Lechmere bailed him out and admitted to being with the woman before any policeman, before Paul, before anyone. That was rather sporting of him, don't you think, when it had only been Paul's dodgy word for it that PC Neil had not got there first.

In the Times, it says: "He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up." Wow - that looks as if you are correct, Caz! But hey, wait a second: the East London Advertiser it says
"A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person."
So, Caz, unless this was an invention on account of the reporter, what we have is a situation where Mizen is asked whether he continued knocking people up, and answers that no, that he did not do - but he DID finish the errand he had begun when the carmen arrived.

So he was told about the woman in mid-knock, was he? This is getting rather ridiculous. Paul claimed he saw Mizen continuing to knock up after being alerted. That was either true or it wasn't, and Mizen was clearly put on the spot when trying to deny he had 'continued' with what he was doing. He presumably stopped knocking to listen to the message, but instead of going straight off to Buck's Row he must have resumed the knocking at least until both men were out of sight. What's the difference whether he called it finishing, resuming or continuing? He didn't have to stay there knocking until he got a response from that particular house, so why did he? And why not half a dozen more while he was at it? He only admitted to what Paul and Cross could have seen, and only then because Paul had spoken up about it. No wonder Paul was less than impressed with Mizen's lack of urgency.

I also want an answer to my question about Mizens report: Why did his superiors not accept that the carmen were the finders of the body, if the report said so? And who could it not have, if Mizen was not lied to?

Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow that. We don't know what, if anything, Mizen wrote about the men in his report. It doesn't seem likely that he even mentioned them, and he should have done, regardless of what he was told. If he had, the police could have cleared up the initial questions surrounding who was really the first to discover Nichols, and the proper sequence of events from the two men alerting Mizen, and PC Neil finding her alone, to Mizen responding and finding Neil there. It appears that Paul's press interview started the ball rolling and coaxed both Mizen and Lechmere into giving their versions of the same story. Up until then, the only story was that Neil found the body on his own, and there was no mention of seeing Mizen's two men before or after his discovery.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Lechmere´s motive to lie on the murder night was to pass by Mizen unsearched and undetained. Lechmere´s motive to deny the lie at the inquest was his knowledge that Paul would deny that there had been another PC in Bucks Row, thus revealing Lechmere for what he was: a liar.

That doesn't really work, Christer.

Mizen would know Lechmere was a liar the instant he flatly denied telling him a policeman at the scene wanted him. Why would Lechmere worry about anything Paul had claimed in the newspaper, or might claim at the inquest, since Paul had already revealed himself to be a liar, according to you? He had already claimed to be the one who spoke to Mizen - a lie, if only Lechmere did. He had already claimed that he told Mizen the woman was dead - a lie, if Mizen was not told this by either man. Do you want me to find some more lies, or will that suffice for now?

What do you think your killer would prefer? His word against this police-hating workman, who had proved himself a liar from the moment he had opened his mouth? Or his word against your solidly upright, scrupulously honest PC Mizen?

All Lechmere had to say, if challenged over why he had told Mizen a PC wanted him, when there was no evidence for it, was: "I was concerned that Mizen might only leave his beat and help the woman if a colleague requested it" [and according to you he should not have done so on the flimsy grounds of being told a drunk woman was lying on the path of someone else's beat!].

My view is that Mizen was almost certainly told that the woman could be dead, because both men were expecting him to drop what he was doing and go to her. He didn't do so straight away, or one of the men would have seen him go, but he did leave his beat and he did render assistance. If Lechmere killed Nichols, he wouldn't have cared less whether Mizen set off immediately, had a bacon sarnie and mug of tea first, or didn't bother going at all. "A drunk woman, on someone else's beat and out of my area? I can't leave mine just for that. I'd need a written note from the officer concerned."

All Lechmere would have cared about was getting away undetained, unquestioned, unsearched, unidentified. Mizen wasn't even told that he had been at the scene before Paul. There would only be Paul's word for that, and the first thing Paul did was lie his head off in the paper!

Love,

Caz
X

[drstrange169]

Wise words, Caz.

The whole Mizen thing goes nowhere.

To date the evidence supports Xmere and casts doubt on Mizen and basically is the end of it, unless something new comes up.

To be fair, for Xmererites the relevance relies on it being combined with other factors and to date the lack of actual evidence in those factors leave me cold.

Most suspect theories rely on apparent "coincidences" but anyone looking for coincidences will always find them.