The Mizen scam

[Fisherman]

I think it is of essence to look at how the lie was shaped, IF Mizen did indeed lie, just as we must try and understand what he potentially stood to gain from such a lie.

He had been pointed out as a PC who neglected to do his job swiftly. There was a potentially help-needing woman lying in Buck´s Row, and a fellow PC had assessed the situation and asked two carmen to find themselves another PC and send him for assistance. Mizen was therefore in a slightly embarrasing situation, and he may have wanted to polish on his image a bit. That is fair reasoning.

But HOW would it polish on that image to inform the coroner that he had been informed that a fellow PC needed his assistance? The answer is that it would not polish anything - it would further tarnish him instead. If Mizen had really wanted to improve on his status, he would have left the other PC bit out, and he would have played down the information he had been given by the carmen, only admitting that they had spoken of a drunken woman. That would have taken care of his problem - it would have been fully understandable if he did not run his legs off to help a drunkard out of the gutter.
But what Mizen DID , was to tell the true story, not excluding any of the elements that painted himself in a less becoming colour. That speaks tons.

Another element that speaks a very interesting story is that Mizen says that "Cross" had told him that a woman "had been found" in Buck´s Row. Lechmere deliberately omitted to say that HE had been the one who found the woman. He had to do this, because otherwise Mizen would not have let him go.

Finally, just like Lechmere (the poster) says, the fact that Mizen did not take the men´s names down, bears witness to him being convinced that there was no need to do so. And why? Because, of course, he could rely on that other PC having taken care of that. And even IF the other PC had for some unfathomable reason forgotten to do so, Mizen could rest reassured that there would be no risk involved in letting the guys go anyway - they had been aquitted by PC number one, since he had been in the position to make sure that they were safe to let go and find him. Therefore, they could not possibly have had anything to do with the woman in Buck´s Row.

I have said it before - the scam is a completely watertight and utterly ingenious one. I would not blame Mizen for a second. His actions were fully understandable. After all, he would not in his wildest imagination have expected a killer to seek him out of his own free will.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

"I am sensing an cowards ambush .. bring it on !"
I sense paranoia

Hi Abbey
The thing that tilts against that interprepation is that Mizen neglected to take their names and addresses which would have been a bog standard procedure. That is the clue to the truth in his statement that Cross said he (Mizen) was wanted by a policeman.
Until recently I assumed it was just Mizen covering his ass - but I had not noticed the line in the inquest where Mizen refers to Cross as the man he now knows as Cross - i.e. he didn't know his name before the inquest. Also it is clear the police didn't know Paul's address as they took some time to track him down. Until I looked at these aspects properly I assumed Cross had given his name to Mizen. However it is clear that Cross and Paul passed Mizen with only the briefest exchange and that Cross gave his details at a police station at a later date.
I would describe the act of abandoning a woman who they thought was possibly just 'out cold' as being extremely callous. That callous behaviour was exacerbated by the very brief communication with Mizen. Callous on the part of Paul anyway - calculating on the part of Cross (in my opinion).

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

" Callous on the part of Paul anyway - calculating on the part of Cross (in my opinion)."

We may need to forgive Paul for not telling Mizen - there is, I believe, every reason to think that he was out of earshot when Lechmere spoke to Mizen. Paul may well have anticipated that Lechmere gave the full and correct picture.
It was, however, callous to leave Nichols on that pavement, both of them.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Another question for the ( never lived in the real world gang )

How many Now (EX service) Police officers , are currently serving time in her majesty's establishments ?

Next you'll gonna be professing that a priest could never be a pedophile and prey on young innocence .

Or may be Politicians are always truthful , and never lie for their own benefits ..

i really could go on and on .. but i digress

I have always known that you was a little bit naive , maybe misguided ..
but i really never had you down as Ignorant .. i am most surprised !

PEOPLE LIE .. for a multitude of reasons .. Does not matter what uniform you throw them in , or badge you pin on their chest , or religious symbol you place around their neck .. FACT .

But that does not mean EVERYONE does .. but some do .

Ask the woman in the white coat to explain it to you

Moonwhatever .

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"i really could go on and on...!

Could?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Moonshine - I know your opinion on the truthfulness of the police under oath is of great interest, but I particularly value Brudewell's opinion on that matter. I haven't expressed an opinion on that subject - you might not have noticed that.

[Rubyretro]

Gordon Bennett, Moonthing,

There is a time when watching too much telly or reading too many tabloids
skews your vision of life. Or listening to too many alternative comedians.

It is sure that clichés have a basis in reality and that telly cop shows often deal with clichés.

Tabloids use sensationalism, and comedians use cynicism.

If those form your view of Life, then all you will be left with are sensationalist cynical clichés.

Here's some incredible news for you !-despite telly, tabloids and comedians, not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are liars (well -that one is iffy !),and not all priests are paedophiles.

The majority probably aren't. They were probably people who (at least originally) chose their vocation because they had ideals and a sense of duty -sneer if you want.

I think that it is you who is the one who is naive, by choosing a doubtlessly fashionable cynical and politically correct view of public service...lets all spit on policemen, politicians and priests..

it's ever so easy to do that, but it's not particuarly clever nor even truthful.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Another question for the ( never lived in the real world gang )

How many Now (EX service) Police officers , are currently serving time in her majesty's establishments ?

Next you'll gonna be professing that a priest could never be a pedophile and prey on young innocence .

Or may be Politicians are always truthful , and never lie for their own benefits ..

i really could go on and on .. but i digress

To go back to what I said above - it is actually you who needs to think for yourself and be less naive.

PEOPLE LIE .. for a multitude of reasons .. Does not matter what uniform you throw them in , or badge you pin on their chest , or religious symbol you place around their neck .. FACT .

Perfectly true, dear...so Lechmere/Cross might well have lied, eh ?

B

ut that does not mean EVERYONE does .. but some do .

So Mizen didn't but Lechmere/Cross did ?

[Fisherman]

You may be winning him over, Ruby, you may just be winning him over. Brilliant retort!

All the best and good night for now!

Fisherman

[moonbegger]

The mindboggles Moomintroll at your posts...

Anyone who engages in sensible discussion in this field will admit that much of it is based on conjecture. I sometimes makes guesses based on the evidence and the application of common sense. But when I do I try and point it out that I am not claiming that something as a fact when it is not - even when that something is virtually certain to be the case.

Now I will say that there is no chance whatsoever that Paul will have been able to have seen Cross 'in the act'.
Cross acknowledged that he was aware of Paul at 40 yards. That means that Cross must have in reality been aware of Paul at about 60 yards, otherwise he will not have had time to lower the dress, wipe his hands and conceal the knife.
I believe you used to meander down Durward Street at one point in your life, zig zagging from north pavement to south pavement (I hope not while you were walking from Shoreditch to Essex Road as you would have been lost).
You should surely know without me having to tell you that on a dark night with no street lights, Paul would not have been able to see anything else but the shape of a human form at that distance.
Or are you going to claim that Paul might have had night vision goggles on?

I take it you no longer think that people on the south side of Bucks Row were leaning out of their windows observing the murder scene? That just leaves Essex Wharf. As I pointed out to you - if the killer was worried about window watchers he wouldn't have struck in the back yard at Hanbury Street when it was lighter. I think we can take it that he disregarded window watchers.

The danger to Cross wasn't from an unaware beat plod - it was from a beat plod alerted by Paul crying out murder.
You seem hyper confident that Paul wouldn't have noticed the body. In Paul's newspaper interview he stated that the body was clear to see. No guesswork needed there.
Also if you re-read the contemporary accounts, Cross didn't drag Paul back to the corpse. Paul hadn't reached it by the time Cross approached him and frightened him. No guess work needed there.

As there is no record of Cross ever using the name Cross - including in his children's school records - then until anyone can provide a shred of evidence to the contrary, Cross was a fake name. If he went around calling himself Cross unofficially, then he was inviting riducle on his children.

If the police discovered that he was really Lechmere he could have come out with a concocted story about how he treasured the memory of his late lamented step father. That is why it was a useful fake name to use. The difference - or the reason for the name swap - would be to hide his involvement in the case from his wife. If guilty this would be to avoid her getting suspicious about his behaviour. His family would probably know him to be obsessive, over wraught, up tight, and perhaps aggressive around the home.

Some of this Moonintroll is conjecture based on the facts as known and based on likelihoods
(The question about lying under oath was one that I hope for an answer from Bridewell).

Hello Lechmere.

"Now I will say that there is no chance whatsoever that Paul will have been able to have seen Cross 'in the act'. [ No because he was in middle of road ]

Cross acknowledged that he was aware of Paul at 40 yards. That means that Cross must have in reality been aware of Paul at about 60 yards, otherwise he will not have had time to lower the dress, wipe his hands and conceal the knife" [ And walk back out into the middle of the road ? ]
[ So did CrossMere have special " see further in the dark glasses" (NVG's) on now also ? or just maybe he didn't actually do any of the above . There is also that possibility. ]

In your own words Leech .

"The evidence that the killer had not gone before Cross hove into view is that the killer dropped the skirt to cover the abdominal injuries. The display of the abdominal injuries seems to have been important in all other cases where there were abdominal injuries - Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly. The dropping of the skirt made it less obvious that the victim was dead and would buy time for the killer. But this would only be necessary if there was an immediate prospect of discovery."

[ What like seeing CrossMere , walking up the Row towards him ? ]

"I believe you used to meander down Durward Street at one point in your life, zig zagging from north pavement to south pavement (I hope not while you were walking from Shoreditch to Essex Road as you would have been lost)

[Not sure of your point here Leech ??? But on that note , i didn't get a response from your right hand man , Fisherman ( No more glove puppet innuendos please Ruby ).. So let me see how you fair ..
On many occasions i walked from Shoreditch to Essex rd ( Ha Ha , i just twigged , you prob got your little london A-Z out to see if i was bluffing)
Anyway .. my route home led me down some dodgy streets , and at the time there was a bunch of muggings going on along that very same route. In fact on one occasion i ran into ( not literally ) friend of mines younger
brother who had just been roughed up by some street scum (muggers) , he only got a clump or two ( punched , not robbed , he was skint anyway )

but my point being .. If the muggings were murders , and i came across my friends bro , dead in the street . According to team LechSmear would i be caught up in unfortunate string of circumstances ( baring in mind i walk the exact same route as the Muggings/murders are happening, and i just so happen find a victim/body somewhere along the aforementioned route )
or a Mugger/Murderer ?

Not to mention the fact i may even have a tool (Wepon ) on me , for my own protection ..

[lightbulb moment ]

Has anyone stopped to think , the reason CrossMere may have felt uneasy and bluffed his way past Mizen .. was infact because he was in possesion of a knife ( for his own protection )


moonwhatever .

[Rubyretro]

You may be winning him over, Ruby, you may just be winning him over. Brilliant retort!

All the best and good night for now!

Fisherman

Breakfast tomorrow ?

[moonbegger]

Moonshine - I know your opinion on the truthfulness of the police under oath is of great interest, but I particularly value Brudewell's opinion on that matter. I haven't expressed an opinion on that subject - you might not have noticed that.

In all fairness Leech ;

The Police under oath post was not addressed to you .

moonbegaaaarrrrrgggghh ( like it See how that works )

[FrankO]

The evidence that the killer had not gone before Cross hove into view is that the killer droppeed the skirt to cover the abdominal injuries. The display of the abdominal injuries seems to have been important in all other cases where there were abdominal injuries - Tabram, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly. The dropping of the skirt made it less obvious that the victim was dead and would buy time for the killer.

Did the killer actually pull her clothes down, Lechmere? If we are to believe Paul’s inquest statement as it appeared in the Times of 18 September, he may well not have done so. As it stated: “Her clothes were raised almost up to her stomach.”, which may well have meant that part of her belly was left uncovered.

Perhaps, if Polly’s killer was interrupted, he brushed them down a little as he aborted his mission and took off. Perhaps, he just didn’t raise them all the way because that proved difficult. As may be supported by what Cross said according to the Star of 3 September: “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.”

As with all the information we are left with regarding Polly’s murder, it’s a pity indeed that the information regarding the extent of the raising of her clothes and the exact location of her wounds is too limited to draw any conclusions.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Another element that speaks a very interesting story is that Mizen says that "Cross" had told him that a woman "had been found" in Buck´s Row.

"A woman had been found there" seems to have been a newspaper transcription of "a woman is lying there", rather than that those, according to Mizen, were the actual words used by Cross, Fish. I've seen the former in 3 newspapers out of 11, while the latter 6 times out of 11.

The best!
Frank

[moonbegger]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;230498]Gordon Bennett, Moonthing,

There is a time when watching too much telly or reading too many tabloids
skews your vision of life. Or listening to too many alternative comedians.

It is sure that clichés have a basis in reality and that telly cop shows often deal with clichés.

Tabloids use sensationalism, and comedians use cynicism.

If those form your view of Life, then all you will be left with are sensationalist cynical clichés.

Here's some incredible news for you !-despite telly, tabloids and comedians, not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are liars (well -that one is iffy !),and not all priests are paedophiles.

The majority probably aren't. They were probably people who (at least originally) chose their vocation because they had ideals and a sense of duty -sneer if you want.

I think that it is you who is the one who is naive, by choosing a doubtlessly fashionable cynical and politically correct view of public service...lets all spit on policemen, politicians and priests..

it's ever so easy to do that, but it's not particularly clever nor even truthful.

[QUOTE]

To go back to what I said above - it is actually you who needs to think for yourself and be less naive.



Perfectly true, dear...so Lechmere/Cross might well have lied, eh ?

B

So Mizen didn't but Lechmere/Cross did ?

Hello Retro ,

Soooo we can actually agree , people in all walks of life lie ..

"not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are liars (well -that one is iffy !),and not all priests are paedophiles."

No Ruby , They are Not .. BUT some do and some are .. thats all i was putting across ..

Yes CrossMere Could have lied , Yes Mizen could have lied , yes those German folk who live in Buckingham palace ( who coincidentally had no qualms switching there Name about ) could lie Too

I have the greatest respect in the world for our police force and the mainly thankless job they undertake , but for every bunch of good apples there are always a few with worms in .. thats just the way it is . In Life , in General !

You only have to take look at the Rodney King case in the US to see how SOME Officers with a Badge and a Baton will go to great lengths to cover up a misdemeanor. But once again not ALL Police officers are Corrupt ..

I am all about keeping it real ruby , not kissing ass because it may offend someone .

moonwhatever

[moonbegger]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;230498]Gordon Bennett, Moonthing,

There is a time when watching too much telly or reading too many tabloids
skews your vision of life. Or listening to too many alternative comedians.

It is sure that clichés have a basis in reality and that telly cop shows often deal with clichés.

Tabloids use sensationalism, and comedians use cynicism.

If those form your view of Life, then all you will be left with are sensationalist cynical clichés.

Here's some incredible news for you !-despite telly, tabloids and comedians, not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are liars (well -that one is iffy !),and not all priests are paedophiles.

The majority probably aren't. They were probably people who (at least originally) chose their vocation because they had ideals and a sense of duty -sneer if you want.

I think that it is you who is the one who is naive, by choosing a doubtlessly fashionable cynical and politically correct view of public service...lets all spit on policemen, politicians and priests..

it's ever so easy to do that, but it's not particularly clever nor even truthful.

[QUOTE]

To go back to what I said above - it is actually you who needs to think for yourself and be less naive.



Perfectly true, dear...so Lechmere/Cross might well have lied, eh ?

B

So Mizen didn't but Lechmere/Cross did ?

Hello Retro ,

Soooo we can actually agree , people in all walks of life lie ..

"not all policemen are corrupt, not all politicians are liars (well -that one is iffy !),and not all priests are paedophiles."

No Ruby , They are Not .. BUT some do and some are .. thats all i was putting across ..

Yes CrossMere Could have lied , Yes Mizen could have lied , yes those German folk who live in Buckingham palace ( Who coincidentally had no qualms switching their Name about ) could lie Too

I have the greatest respect in the world for our police force and the mainly thankless job they undertake , but for every bunch of good apples there are always a few with worms in .. thats just the way it is . In Life , in General !

You only have to take look at the Rodney King case in the US to see how SOME Officers with a Badge and a Baton will go to great lengths to cover up a misdemeanor. But once again not ALL Police officers are Corrupt ..

I am all about keeping it real ruby , not kissing ass because it may offend someone .

moonwhatever