The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Elamarna]

I note that you skip over the question of Paul and how he said nothing in his paper interview about the second PC matter?

And yes, of course we shall see how your argument, eh... "stands up to scrutiny".

My, we are getting serious, are we not?

I did not skip Paul, given how many times we have discussed that very matter. It is clear that there are entrenched positions here, I see little point in repeating them in detail until the book is released.

However simply historical facts, Paul gives his account on Friday, Published on Sunday. No reference to a second police office, but he does give same version of events as Lechmeremere will give on Monday at the inquest. and that of course is when The Mizen version of events is first heard of.

Hard for Paul to deny the comment about a second policeman on Friday, if the story does not exist until Monday.

I have always been serious.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

To begin with, Nichols was NOT posed in a sexual position in order to achieve shock value.

There is your first clue to the solution.

To boot, her wounds were hidden - clue two!

You speak of a perceived barrier that kept him from running in the Nichols case. Perhaps we should instead speak of a one-off opportunity - once he had bluffed it out in the Nichols case, he could not do so on any of the other occasions. That means that he had to run in those four cases - whereas he did not have to do that at all in the Nichols case.

Her wounds were hidden by Paul - end of clue.

[Fisherman]

I did not skip Paul, given how many times we have discussed that very matter. It is clear that there are entrenched positions here, I see little point in repeating them in detail until the book is released.

However simply historical facts, Paul gives his account on Friday, Published on Sunday. No reference to a second police office, but he does give same version of events as Lechmeremere will give on Monday at the inquest. and that of course is when The Mizen version of events is first heard of.

Hard for Paul to deny the comment about a second policeman on Friday, if the story does not exist until Monday.

I have always been serious.



Steve

Smoke and mirrors. It still stands that Mizen would not have any support at all in Pauls paper interview for lying the way you claim he would have done. Just like I say, if Mizen chose to lie, then he took a large risk since it pplied that the moment Paul surfaced, he would be able to verify or deny that Lechmere had spoken about a second PC.

Then again, Steve - if Mizen DID lie, and if he DID feel confident that Paul would not be able to overthrow that lie once he surfaced, I hope you realize what that implies.

I´ll give you some time to digest that one.

[Fisherman]

Her wounds were hidden by Paul - end of clue.

So tell us, Herlock, how does pulling the clothing down from over her knees to under them hide the wounds in the abdomen? And tell us how two carmen are able to see a black hat on a dark street - but unable to see large gashes in white skin?

It should all make for very revealing reading, I believe.

[Fisherman]

I made quick recapture of the press material speaking about the matters of whether the clothing was down over the wounds and whether Paul only pulled them down when he and Lechmere had examined the body or if both men pulled the clothing down, as has lately been inferred.

Here are the different reports:

Lechmeres evidence:


The woman's legs were uncovered.

(Daily News)


The woman's legs were uncovered.

(East London Observer)


The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her. He then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

(Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times)


When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.
Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir.

(The Echo)

The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

(Illustrated Police News)

When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

(Morning Advertiser)

Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees, but they did not seem as though they would come down.

(The Star)

Pauls evidence:

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.*

(Daily Telegraph)

Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.

While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.

(The Times)

So what can we see? Well, we can see that one source only speaks of how the clothing was "raised almost up to her stomach", and that is Paul saying so in the Times. All of the other sources speak of how the clothes were "above her knees" or how "her legs were uncovered". The only conclusion possible is that the clothing was high up on her thighs, somewhere around hip level, and if they had been lifted any further, she would have become indecently exposed. She was however no such thing.

The issue of whether Paul himself pulled the clothing down or whether both men did is effectively left as a non-issue by the Echo, where the report adds something the other papers did not, the coroners question to Lechmere "Did you touch the clothing". Lechmere´s answer is a no, he did not. And indeed all other reports are in agreement, stating that Paul was the one who did it. Even Paul verifies this in The Times. The only small pointer in any other direction is in the Daily Telegraph, where it is said that Paul helped to pull the clothing down, since it was in disarrangement. But I think this refers to how he helped Nichols, not Lechmere.

A personal addition of mine would be that Lechmere, if he was the killer and bluffed it out, would be interested to pull the clothing down as far as he could, but the body was nevertheless left with the legs being exposed. Arguably, this owed to how the dress was snagged underneath Nichols, and when Paul made an effort, this was confirmed by how he only succeeded to get it down to over her knees.

[Elamarna]

Smoke and mirrors. It still stands that Mizen would not have any support at all in Pauls paper interview for lying the way you claim he would have done. Just like I say, if Mizen chose to lie, then he took a large risk since it pplied that the moment Paul surfaced, he would be able to verify or deny that Lechmere had spoken about a second PC.

Then again, Steve - if Mizen DID lie, and if he DID feel confident that Paul would not be able to overthrow that lie once he surfaced, I hope you realize what that implies.

I´ll give you some time to digest that one.

It of course implies nothing,because you have it back to front, Paul's account is before ANY record of Mizen's account given at the inquest. It is Paul's account which leads to Mizen's account in my suggestion.

The white Lie, given at the inquest, achived it's aim, it muddled the waters and prevented questions being asked, there was no risk as it could be presented as a simply mistake, that he could live with, other things would have been far more difficult for him.
Of course not knowing my reasoning for Mizen to lie, nor the exact evidence which backs that theory up, its very difficul, if not impossible,t for you to make any resasoned comments, I fully understand that.



Steve

[Elamarna]

I made quick recapture of the press material speaking about the matters of whether the clothing was down over the wounds and whether Paul only pulled them down when he and Lechmere had examined the body or if both men pulled the clothing down, as has lately been inferred.

Here are the different reports:

Lechmeres evidence:


The woman's legs were uncovered.

(Daily News)


The woman's legs were uncovered.

(East London Observer)


The man suggested that we should move her, but I would not touch her. He then tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

(Eastern Argus & Borough of Hackney Times)


When I found her, her clothes were above her knees. There did not seem to be much clothing. The other man pulled her clothes down before he left.
Did you touch the clothes? - No, Sir.

(The Echo)

The other man tried to pull her clothes down to cover her legs, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

(Illustrated Police News)

When I found her clothes were up above her knees we tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down.

(Morning Advertiser)

Before they left the body the other man tried to pull the clothes over the woman's knees, but they did not seem as though they would come down.

(The Star)

Pauls evidence:

The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down.*

(Daily Telegraph)

Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.

While he was pulling the clothes down he touched the breast, and then fancied he felt a slight movement.

(The Times)

So what can we see? Well, we can see that one source only speaks of how the clothing was "raised almost up to her stomach", and that is Paul saying so in the Times. All of the other sources speak of how the clothes were "above her knees" or how "her legs were uncovered". The only conclusion possible is that the clothing was high up on her thighs, somewhere around hip level, and if they had been lifted any further, she would have become indecently exposed. She was however no such thing.

The issue of whether Paul himself pulled the clothing down or whether both men did is effectively left as a non-issue by the Echo, where the report adds something the other papers did not, the coroners question to Lechmere "Did you touch the clothing". Lechmere´s answer is a no, he did not. And indeed all other reports are in agreement, stating that Paul was the one who did it. Even Paul verifies this in The Times. The only small pointer in any other direction is in the Daily Telegraph, where it is said that Paul helped to pull the clothing down, since it was in disarrangement. But I think this refers to how he helped Nichols, not Lechmere.

A personal addition of mine would be that Lechmere, if he was the killer and bluffed it out, would be interested to pull the clothing down as far as he could, but the body was nevertheless left with the legs being exposed. Arguably, this owed to how the dress was snagged underneath Nichols, and when Paul made an effort, this was confirmed by how he only succeeded to get it down to over her knees.

Broadly in agreement here Christer,


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course the key point is there was no need to actually run, even if we take the 40 yards given by Lechmere as being the distance when he became aware of someone approaching, he could still just walk.

And why would you stop a man walking?


Steve

Exactly

[Fisherman]

It of course implies nothing,because you have it back to front, Paul's account is before ANY record of Mizen's account given at the inquest. It is Paul's account which leads to Mizen's account in my suggestion.

The white Lie, given at the inquest, achived it's aim, it muddled the waters and prevented questions being asked, there was no risk as it could be presented as a simply mistake, that he could live with, other things would have been far more difficult for him.
Of course not knowing my reasoning for Mizen to lie, nor the exact evidence which backs that theory up, its very difficul, if not impossible,t for you to make any resasoned comments, I fully understand that.

Steve

So you now say that you think that Pauls account led to Mizens, and that would arguably also mean that you think Pauls account was what made Mizen decide that he needed to lie. Correct me if I ´m wrong, Steve!

So! If this holds true, then we have a PC, who invents the lie that Lechmere would have told him that there was another PC present in Bucks Row. But Pauls interview does not involve any confirmation or denial of any such thing being said.

That would therefore implicate that either Mizen did not care that Paul would prove him a liar if he was put on the witness stand - or that Mizen knew that Paul had not been within earshot of the conversation and that he therefore did not risk any denial from Paul on that point.
Which is it, Steve?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So tell us, Herlock, how does pulling the clothing down from over her knees to under them hide the wounds in the abdomen? And tell us how two carmen are able to see a black hat on a dark street - but unable to see large gashes in white skin?

It should all make for very revealing reading, I believe.

I didn’t realise that you believed Paul to be in on the plot.

[Fisherman]

I didn’t realise that you believed Paul to be in on the plot.

What HAVE you realized, Herlock? It seems to differ a whole lot from what I have. And how about answering my questions? How did they NOT see the gashes in the abdomen when they saw the hat? Just how does that work? Does it work at all?

I think not.

[Elamarna]

So you now say that you think that Pauls account led to Mizens, and that would arguably also mean that you think Pauls account was what made Mizen decide that he needed to lie. Correct me if I ´m wrong, Steve!

Correct

So! If this holds true, then we have a PC, who invents the lie that Lechmere would have told him that there was another PC present in Bucks Row. But Pauls interview does not involve any confirmation or denial of any such thing being said.

Such denial would be impossible in my suggestion, as the idea for "Another Officer" has not been born when Paul gives his interview later on 31st August.
However Paul's interview gives an account of the exchanges between the caemen and Mizen, which does not included any thing resembling that of Mizen 3rd September, but is very broadly the same as the account of Lechmere 3rd September.

And please don't forget John Neil has already given his testimony 1st Sebtember, it is in reality a combination of events that leads to Jonas Mizen's account at the inquest 3rd September.

That would therefore implicate that either Mizen did not care that Paul would prove him a liar if he was put on the witness stand - or that Mizen knew that Paul had not been within earshot of the conversation and that he therefore did not risk any denial from Paul on that point.
Which is it, Steve?

Back to the old chestnut of "not within earshot" I see.

Lets put this to bed , there is Absolutly nothing, from any of the 3 participants, not even Mizen himself which gives any credence to this suggestion.

However lets deal, briefly with your first point.

It did not matter, what Paul might say at a later date, indeed when he does appear, the absence of any questioning about the matter is interesting in itself.
The difference of opinion could reasonably be written off as a mistake, a simply misunderstand, which has been the prevailing position for most of the last 130 years.
Remember I have said Mizen had not broken the Police Code, legally he had done nothing wrong on the 31st August.

The aim was to avoid aline of questioning,which had no direct bearing on the murder, this he achived.


Steve

[Bridewell]

If he runs, he can´t be identified?

Does that not wash only if he does not run into the arms of a PC, Colin?

And what were the chances of him "running into a PC", Fish? Mizen was pre-occupied with knocking up; I suspect others (and there won't have been that many of them) were similarly engaged.

And would not that PC have a very good reason to believe that he was holding on to the killer?

How does the PC know that there has been a killing? It's only just happened.

This has been discussed on hundreds of occasions, and it has not changed.

If something has been discussed many times it means that there are unresolved differences of opinion surely?

[Herlock Sholmes]

What HAVE you realized, Herlock? It seems to differ a whole lot from what I have. And how about answering my questions? How did they NOT see the gashes in the abdomen when they saw the hat? Just how does that work? Does it work at all?

I think not.

It’s sometimes difficult to follow the twists of imaginative fiction.

They didn’t see the gashes because they were covered by the killer. Either because it was his first kill and he hadn’t yet considered the idea of ‘display’ or he was disturbed by the approaching Lech.

Nothing to see here....

[Herlock Sholmes]

And what were the chances of him "running into a PC", Fish? Mizen was pre-occupied with knocking up; I suspect others (and there won't have been that many of them) were similarly engaged.



How does the PC know that there has been a killing? It's only just happened.



If something has been discussed many times it means that there are unresolved differences of opinion surely?

You’re flogging a dead horse on this one Colin. Fish has Andy Griffiths who apparently overrides every other opinion.