PC Jonas Mizen

[Patrick S]

Harry and I have done this discussion a hundred times, which was what I was referring to. I have had the same discussion with you a hundred times and more. Any new students can read it in detail out here. The one thing that seems new this time over is how you misunderstand when I speak about being hauled in for questioning. I was referring to such a questioning somewhere down the line, when the murder weapon was long gone.

The rest is old hat, is it not? For example, experts on police work like Monty has pointed out that Mizen cannot be accused of poor policing. It fits your argument, though, so you like it and use it.

Its disagreeing time, not discussion time. Not for me.

Old hat, yes. But, still interesting.

I'm happy accept Mizen "cannot be accused of poor policing". Robert Paul seems to have disagreed though:

"I told him (Mizen) what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

In light of the fact that Nichols was, in fact, dead (with four previously unsolved attacks of woman currently serving as press fodder for attacking the Met) and taking into consideration Paul's remarkable statement (above), one can at least understand why, even if Mizen's actions were perfectly acceptable by the standards of the day, the Met, Mizen, et al, may have been been somewhat embarrassed by what occurred in Bakers Row and by what the public may have made of Paul's statement, taken with the fact that the Millwood, Wilson, Smith, and Tabram attacker(s) remained at large.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, thank you, he probably wasn't wearing an apron, granted.

I think the reason why he didn't help Paul prop Polly up was that he felt that her head would fall off.

The whole situation is strange. How long was Lechmere with the body before Paul came by? Why didn't Lechmere go for help himself? Given that Lechmere was employed "for some time" before this date (Friday 31/8/1888) he would have been familiar with the route and possibly those who were out and about at that time of the morning. He may have been aware of Paul's routine and perhaps that of Constables Neil and Mizen. Conjecture is a fine thing, yet I find the window of opportunity is very small in this particular case.
The attending doctor (Henry Llewellyn) arrived at 4:00am and stated that Polly had died approximately half an hour prior (around 3:30am). Paul states that he came across Polly and Lechmere at "exactly" 3:45am. Lechmere states he left home at 3:30am although he usually left home at 3:20am. It was a 7 minute walk from his home to Buck's Row which meant that he arrived some time between 3:27am and 3:37am. Even at the outside, say 3:40am it still leaves him alone with Polly for 5 minutes before Paul arrived. At the earliest, 3:27am, there would be little doubt that Lechmere had done it - the window of opportunity is just too small. It would be most gratifying if I knew what time a bobby last walked down Buck's Row, it would establish for a certainty the exact timeframe between when the body appeared and when Paul arrived to see Lechmere with the body.

Polly was last seen by a room-mate at 2:30am on the corner of Osborn St (Brick Lane) and Whitechapel Road. It is only a 5 minute walk from there to Buck's Road (Durward St) although it's doubtful she went straight there. She was killed where she lay between, no earlier than 3:15 and no later than 3:45. Paul was running behind time at 3:45am and would "usually" be in Buck's Row two?, three?, five? minutes prior. Lechmere would "normally" be in Buck's Row around the same time - anywhere between 3:22 and 3:37 (even if he left at 3:30am).

I think he stayed with the body because he had no choice - to flee may have caused alarm to whoever was approaching, besides I don't think either Paul or Lechmere were overly cluey.

Considering Lechmere's familiarity with the area, I believe he knew that Paul wasn't a copper and knew when the police patrolled Buck's Row as he walked the same route for a few years before that morning. Buck's Row is about 30-odd minutes from Broad Street (Lechmere's employ), so I'd assume Lechmere would leave home at quarter past (by the bell) or twenty past three to be at work by 4. If he leaves at 3:15 he's at Bucks Row at 22 past 3 - and the murderer. I just don't think anyone had the opportunity, the time or was as familiar with the area at that time in the morning as did Lechmere.

But again, this is all guess-timation. And, even if Lechmere killed Nichols, he may not have killed the others (the canonical ones anyway) but he DID have the opportunity to do so, was very familiar with the area and was in the area at or about the times of the killings.

hi snidey
welcome and great first posts. love your style-you must be a writer! lol

full disclosure-I think lech is a valid suspect. hes still not in my top tier of favored suspects, but hes close.

I too have an issue with the timing. not only hes seems to have been with polly longer than he says-but I like, you, find it extremely odd Paul just happens to come upon lech in that instant where hes just standing there trying to figure out what to do. its the only instant where we have someone near/discovering a victim before they try to raise any alarm. not going to get help, not walking away, not following him-in that one moment-probably only a few seconds-when lech is hovering near the body.

put yourself in pauls shoes. he comes into a dark street, no one else around, to see a man near a recently killed victim. creepy. and yes suspicious.

I also am a little more sympathetic to fishes idea of the stay and ruse approach by lech, as I had a similar experience myself.

now all that being said-I think all the ripper suspects are weak. some are just less weak than others. and IMHO lech is one of them.

Id also be remiss if I didn't admit that I am one of the few who think that the ripper and torsoman were probably one and the same-and agewise Lech fits that criteria two, as well as geographically and means (possible use of a cart to dispose of torsos/parts). And of course pinchin torso was found near his old abode.

plus hes a jerk anyway and apparently bad news (he accidently killed a kid with his cart). so hes easy to dislike.

[Fisherman]

Old hat, yes. But, still interesting.

I'm happy accept Mizen "cannot be accused of poor policing". Robert Paul seems to have disagreed though:

"I told him (Mizen) what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

In light of the fact that Nichols was, in fact, dead (with four previously unsolved attacks of woman currently serving as press fodder for attacking the Met) and taking into consideration Paul's remarkable statement (above), one can at least understand why, even if Mizen's actions were perfectly acceptable by the standards of the day, the Met, Mizen, et al, may have been been somewhat embarrassed by what occurred in Bakers Row and by what the public may have made of Paul's statement, taken with the fact that the Millwood, Wilson, Smith, and Tabram attacker(s) remained at large.

It was not for Robert Paul to decide whether Jonas Mizen followed regulations or not - Paul is generally accepted as a man who was none too fond of the police, and so he was always likely to come down hard on them. You may - or may not - remember that he in his paper interview said that the body must have lain around for the longest time, implicating that the police had not done their job properly. Then, at the inquest, he instead said that she could well have been alive as he felt her breast.
What counts is the regulations and Mizen followed them to a tee, it would seem. Which is good on him, since a number of todays posters out here seem to be sharing Pauls sentiments, painting the PC out as a bad egg. Which in its turn is natural, if one wants to pooh-pooh the idea that Lechmere lied to him, something that is clear from the PC:s testimony - which must therefore also be pooh-poohed. Mizen misheard, Mizen got it wrong, Mizen lied!
Logic is logic. Not my logic, though.

Was Mizen an embarrassment to the Met? Of course not. He did hat he was supposed to do, and if any instance is to blame it would be the police regulations for not encouraging PC:s to believe that passers-by who give them information are liars and killers.

The embarassment there perhaps was, would have been due to the fact that the Met had served a version of the finding of Nichols that was not true. In that respect, they may well have felt a bit silly, but all in all, there was no reason to criticize the Met for the events surrounding the meeting between Mizen and the carman. The real embarrassment was to arrive later on, when the police proved themselves not up to the task of investigating the case properly, missing out on interviewing potentially important witnesses, being taken to taks for that failure at the inquest.

[Fisherman]

hi snidey
welcome and great first posts. love your style-you must be a writer! lol

full disclosure-I think lech is a valid suspect. hes still not in my top tier of favored suspects, but hes close.

I too have an issue with the timing. not only hes seems to have been with polly longer than he says-but I like, you, find it extremely odd Paul just happens to come upon lech in that instant where hes just standing there trying to figure out what to do. its the only instant where we have someone near/discovering a victim before they try to raise any alarm. not going to get help, not walking away, not following him-in that one moment-probably only a few seconds-when lech is hovering near the body.

put yourself in pauls shoes. he comes into a dark street, no one else around, to see a man near a recently killed victim. creepy. and yes suspicious.

I also am a little more sympathetic to fishes idea of the stay and ruse approach by lech, as I had a similar experience myself.

now all that being said-I think all the ripper suspects are weak. some are just less weak than others. and IMHO lech is one of them.

Id also be remiss if I didn't admit that I am one of the few who think that the ripper and torsoman were probably one and the same-and agewise Lech fits that criteria two, as well as geographically and means (possible use of a cart to dispose of torsos/parts). And of course pinchin torso was found near his old abode.

plus hes a jerk anyway and apparently bad news (he accidently killed a kid with his cart). so hes easy to dislike.

I find the criticism of the timing issue on behalf of those who cannot hear the word carman without frothing at the mouth: "Maybe the timings were out, maybe he started out later than he thought, maybe he was taking a leak on the way, delaying him.

That does not alter the fact that the time he himself gave is not in sync with the time he was in Bucks Row - he should have been some way down Hanbury Street at 3.40, and much further at 3.45.

The timings could be wrong, yes. But why would we use timings he never gave instead of the ones he DID give?

So that we can clear him of any suspicion? Aha. I see.

Silly me.

[Patrick S]

It was not for Robert Paul to decide whether Jonas Mizen followed regulations or not - Paul is generally accepted as a man who was none too fond of the police, and so he was always likely to come down hard on them. You may - or may not - remember that he in his paper interview said that the body must have lain around for the longest time, implicating that the police had not done their job properly. Then, at the inquest, he instead said that she could well have been alive as he felt her breast.
What counts is the regulations and Mizen followed them to a tee, it would seem. Which is good on him, since a number of todays posters out here seem to be sharing Pauls sentiments, painting the PC out as a bad egg. Which in its turn is natural, if one wants to pooh-pooh the idea that Lechmere lied to him, something that is clear from the PC:s testimony - which must therefore also be pooh-poohed. Mizen misheard, Mizen got it wrong, Mizen lied!
Logic is logic. Not my logic, though.

Was Mizen an embarrassment to the Met? Of course not. He did hat he was supposed to do, and if any instance is to blame it would be the police regulations for not encouraging PC:s to believe that passers-by who give them information are liars and killers.

The embarassment there perhaps was, would have been due to the fact that the Met had served a version of the finding of Nichols that was not true. In that respect, they may well have felt a bit silly, but all in all, there was no reason to criticize the Met for the events surrounding the meeting between Mizen and the carman. The real embarrassment was to arrive later on, when the police proved themselves not up to the task of investigating the case properly, missing out on interviewing potentially important witnesses, being taken to taks for that failure at the inquest.

The point is simple: Paul's statement regardless of the modern, "generally accepted" idea that he was "none too fond of the police", he (Paul) was not known to be that by those reading his Lloyd's statement. Unless you allege he was known all over town as being virulently anti-police? To the reader, he was a witness who interacted with a PC, was critical of the police, at a time when they'd come under criticism from the press and public for making no progress in the cases of four, now FIVE, attacks on women in that area of London.

Mizen reacted as he did. Nichols turned out to be dead, not drunk, as it seems likely Mizen had assumed from the way both Paul and Cross describe his reaction, and then Paul made his statement in Lloyd's... a statement highly critical of the police activities on the night of Nichols' murder (Mizen's lack of action, Paul's inferring the police weren't walking their beats as they should). That's a problem for the Met. Especially when one considers, as you mentioned and about which I've written extensively over the years, that Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone had found the body.

It is clear that Mizen DID NOT report his interaction with Paul and Cross to his superiors in that Neil testified as he did, with NO MENTION of these two men having been there before he arrived in Buck's Row. Can we, perhaps, view Mizen's failure to report this obviously important detail as substandard police work by Mizen?

Paul's statement is critical of the police. You say that it is now generally accepted that he was anti-police. What else do you know of Paul that supports this?

You say that Cross LIED to Mizen, told him a PC awaited him in Buck's Row. Yet Paul says nothing of Cross (or anyone, for that matter) saying anything of the kind. Yet, in your view, Mizen is truthful while Cross is lying (because he killed Nichols). Paul is either lying, or Cross was able to speak to Mizen out of Paul's hearing and pull his "Mizen Scam". For this to have happened Paul must be Cross' dupe - allowing him pull Mizen aside or whisper in his ear WITHOUT Paul thinking it the slightest bit odd... at least not odd enough to mention in any of his statements. Or we return to the idea that Paul lied - having allowed Cross to blatantly lie to Mizen without disagreeing with him, not telling Mizen that Cross had just lied to him about a PC sending the men to find him (Mizen), and then not mentioning the lie in court or thereafter even though Mizen had testified that he was told a PC was waiting in Buck's Row only to have Cross say that was untrue. Paul let this lie stand again. Why would he do that? What evidence do you have that either a secret conversation, out of Paul's hearing - occurred between Cross and Mizen - OR - that Cross told Mizen that he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row and that Paul heard it, yet allowed Cross to lie further when he appeared voluntarily at the inquest and contradicted Mizen's testimony that he HAD been told that he was wanted by a PC?

[drstrange169]

>>So, in essence, in your personal view ...<<

Of course, anything that isn't established fact is a personal view.

[drstrange169]

>>That does not alter the fact that the time he himself gave is not in sync with the time he was in Bucks Row - he should have been some way down Hanbury Street at 3.40, and much further at 3.45.<<

This is, of course, a completely bogus argument.

How do we know what time Xmere left home? We have two different accounts, neither in the first person, meaning we do not know what Xmere exactly said. We are relying on second hand reports. That aside, what evidence do you have that Xmere didn't arrive in Buck's Row at a time consistent with his estimate of leaving home.

You don't.

Instead you are manufacturing an argument based on other peoples timings, which are also unverified and, as far as we know, not synced to Xmere's. The whole thing is a modern day manufacture.

Simple test, prove, to me, according to Xmere time source, that there was a long delay in him reaching Buck's Row.
Prove to me that Paul was correct in saying it was exactly 3:45 when he entered Bucks Row and that the three policemen were wrong.

[drstrange169]

Above all, prove to me that Xmere and Paul's times were in sync. Without that your story is meaningless.

[Fisherman]

>>That does not alter the fact that the time he himself gave is not in sync with the time he was in Bucks Row - he should have been some way down Hanbury Street at 3.40, and much further at 3.45.<<

This is, of course, a completely bogus argument.

How do we know what time Xmere left home? We have two different accounts, neither in the first person, meaning we do not know what Xmere exactly said. We are relying on second hand reports. That aside, what evidence do you have that Xmere didn't arrive in Buck's Row at a time consistent with his estimate of leaving home.

You don't.

Instead you are manufacturing an argument based on other peoples timings, which are also unverified and, as far as we know, not synced to Xmere's. The whole thing is a modern day manufacture.

Simple test, prove, to me, according to Xmere time source, that there was a long delay in him reaching Buck's Row.
Prove to me that Paul was correct in saying it was exactly 3:45 when he entered Bucks Row and that the three policemen were wrong.

A long and unnecessary post. I stated yesterday that the timings cannot be established with any exactitude, but that the timings we HAVE on account of Lechmere are not logical in relation to his whereabouts.

Nothing can change that, and it remains the starting point of any serious discussion. Any police force faced with this information would make it a point to check the details out, and much as it may - or may not - yield information clearing the carman, Lechmere said 3.20 or 3.30, and both times will have him in Bucks Row too early. It has nothing at all to do with any modern-day manufacture, so instead of keeping to the truth, you prefer to mislead again. THAT is modern-day manufacture. Or modern-day manure, take your pick.

[Fisherman]

The point is simple: Paul's statement regardless of the modern, "generally accepted" idea that he was "none too fond of the police", he (Paul) was not known to be that by those reading his Lloyd's statement. Unless you allege he was known all over town as being virulently anti-police? To the reader, he was a witness who interacted with a PC, was critical of the police, at a time when they'd come under criticism from the press and public for making no progress in the cases of four, now FIVE, attacks on women in that area of London.

Mizen reacted as he did. Nichols turned out to be dead, not drunk, as it seems likely Mizen had assumed from the way both Paul and Cross describe his reaction, and then Paul made his statement in Lloyd's... a statement highly critical of the police activities on the night of Nichols' murder (Mizen's lack of action, Paul's inferring the police weren't walking their beats as they should). That's a problem for the Met. Especially when one considers, as you mentioned and about which I've written extensively over the years, that Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone had found the body.

It is clear that Mizen DID NOT report his interaction with Paul and Cross to his superiors in that Neil testified as he did, with NO MENTION of these two men having been there before he arrived in Buck's Row. Can we, perhaps, view Mizen's failure to report this obviously important detail as substandard police work by Mizen?

Paul's statement is critical of the police. You say that it is now generally accepted that he was anti-police. What else do you know of Paul that supports this?

You say that Cross LIED to Mizen, told him a PC awaited him in Buck's Row. Yet Paul says nothing of Cross (or anyone, for that matter) saying anything of the kind. Yet, in your view, Mizen is truthful while Cross is lying (because he killed Nichols). Paul is either lying, or Cross was able to speak to Mizen out of Paul's hearing and pull his "Mizen Scam". For this to have happened Paul must be Cross' dupe - allowing him pull Mizen aside or whisper in his ear WITHOUT Paul thinking it the slightest bit odd... at least not odd enough to mention in any of his statements. Or we return to the idea that Paul lied - having allowed Cross to blatantly lie to Mizen without disagreeing with him, not telling Mizen that Cross had just lied to him about a PC sending the men to find him (Mizen), and then not mentioning the lie in court or thereafter even though Mizen had testified that he was told a PC was waiting in Buck's Row only to have Cross say that was untrue. Paul let this lie stand again. Why would he do that? What evidence do you have that either a secret conversation, out of Paul's hearing - occurred between Cross and Mizen - OR - that Cross told Mizen that he was wanted by a PC in Buck's Row and that Paul heard it, yet allowed Cross to lie further when he appeared voluntarily at the inquest and contradicted Mizen's testimony that he HAD been told that he was wanted by a PC?

I read your post through, Patrick, and I found that there was not a single matter that we have not been over before. Ergo, you will know my answers beforehand and I find there is not need for me to reiterate them. If any new poster asks the same questions - and I have little doubt that this will happen occasionally - I will give my views again, and that should be sufficient.

The one small matter I think you and I may not have been over in detail is the matter about whether Robert Paul was antipolice or not and if there are sources that strengthen such a supposition. IŽd like to quote Edward Stows post from nine years ago (yes, that is how long the errand has been around):
"Also he comes across in his two press statements as being anti police. That is I think why he blamed the police for not finding her sooner and Mizen for not going immediately."

I agree fully with this and I have pointed to where in the first interview he discredits the police for not having done their job and allowed Nichols to grow cold, lying around for the longest time on the pavement. You ask for more pointers in the same direction, and I would say that the passage about how Paul "was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days." ... represents more of the same sentiment.

If you think that is insufficient, I am not surprised. That is what you do and claim throughout, and so it is to be expected. For me, it is quite enough to tell that there was no love lost between Paul and the police, and I have noted that most posters who comment on the relationship are of the same meaning.

[Harry D]

It was not for Robert Paul to decide whether Jonas Mizen followed regulations or not - Paul is generally accepted as a man who was none too fond of the police, and so he was always likely to come down hard on them. You may - or may not - remember that he in his paper interview said that the body must have lain around for the longest time, implicating that the police had not done their job properly. Then, at the inquest, he instead said that she could well have been alive as he felt her breast.
What counts is the regulations and Mizen followed them to a tee, it would seem. Which is good on him, since a number of todays posters out here seem to be sharing Pauls sentiments, painting the PC out as a bad egg. Which in its turn is natural, if one wants to pooh-pooh the idea that Lechmere lied to him, something that is clear from the PC:s testimony - which must therefore also be pooh-poohed. Mizen misheard, Mizen got it wrong, Mizen lied!
Logic is logic. Not my logic, though.

Was Mizen an embarrassment to the Met? Of course not. He did hat he was supposed to do, and if any instance is to blame it would be the police regulations for not encouraging PC:s to believe that passers-by who give them information are liars and killers.

The embarassment there perhaps was, would have been due to the fact that the Met had served a version of the finding of Nichols that was not true. In that respect, they may well have felt a bit silly, but all in all, there was no reason to criticize the Met for the events surrounding the meeting between Mizen and the carman. The real embarrassment was to arrive later on, when the police proved themselves not up to the task of investigating the case properly, missing out on interviewing potentially important witnesses, being taken to taks for that failure at the inquest.

It still doesn't make sense for Lechmere, as the killer, to tell Mizen that Nichols was "probably dead", if he was looking to get away. That's regardless of the "Mizen scam". Lechmere said one thing, Mizen said another. Paul doesn't corroborate either, therefore it remains inconclusive. I think Mizen had more reason to tell porkies than Lechmere, though, or he may have misread the situation.

[Fisherman]

It still doesn't make sense for Lechmere, as the killer, to tell Mizen that Nichols was "probably dead", if he was looking to get away. That's regardless of the "Mizen scam". Lechmere said one thing, Mizen said another. Paul doesn't corroborate either, therefore it remains inconclusive. I think Mizen had more reason to tell porkies than Lechmere, though, or he may have misread the situation.

Most messages are understood correctly, the absolute majority of them. Our existence depends on it. There is no reason to think or evidence at all pointing to Mizen failing to understand or hear what Lechmere told him. Not is there any reason to think that Mizen was a baad egg. So you will have tolerant to live with it being the more probable thing that if Mizen was recanting something Lechmere said, he recanted it correctly.

As I said before, and as I stand by, this scam would have ensured that Lechmere could say just about anything about Nichols and get away with it. Plus, as I also said, if Lechmere counted on the possibility of being identified and summonsed to the inquest, it would make him look good if he had realized the full implications of the errand.

Ergo, the only problems tied to this are the ones we choose to make up on our own.

[Patrick S]

I read your post through, Patrick, and I found that there was not a single matter that we have not been over before. Ergo, you will know my answers beforehand and I find there is not need for me to reiterate them. If any new poster asks the same questions - and I have little doubt that this will happen occasionally - I will give my views again, and that should be sufficient.

The one small matter I think you and I may not have been over in detail is the matter about whether Robert Paul was antipolice or not and if there are sources that strengthen such a supposition. IŽd like to quote Edward Stows post from nine years ago (yes, that is how long the errand has been around):
"Also he comes across in his two press statements as being anti police. That is I think why he blamed the police for not finding her sooner and Mizen for not going immediately."

I agree fully with this and I have pointed to where in the first interview he discredits the police for not having done their job and allowed Nichols to grow cold, lying around for the longest time on the pavement. You ask for more pointers in the same direction, and I would say that the passage about how Paul "was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days." ... represents more of the same sentiment.

If you think that is insufficient, I am not surprised. That is what you do and claim throughout, and so it is to be expected. For me, it is quite enough to tell that there was no love lost between Paul and the police, and I have noted that most posters who comment on the relationship are of the same meaning.

I see. Your "evidence" that Robert Paul was anti-Police is to quote your partner in all things Lechmere, Edward Stow (who used to post here under name "Lechmere", coincidentally enough)... and a statement by Paul the he was annoyed at the inconvenience the Nichols matter caused him. Rather than conclude that Robert Paul wasn't a rich man and that losing a days wages may have impacted and rightly annoyed the man, you contend that some pre-existing police hatred (for which you have not one shred of evidence to suggest existed) compelled him to make anti-police statements and offer false testimony at a murder inquest. Further, he allowed Cross to lie under oath. He failed to be truthful and agree with Mizen when he testified that Cross had told him (Mizen) he was wanted by a PC, when Cross had in fact done just that.... just to stick it to the police (?). Either that or Paul watched like an imbecile as Cross pulled Mizen aside and whispered to him in Baker's Row, and never felt compelled to mention it to anyone, even as Mizen's claim of having been told of a PC in Bucks Row became a point of emphasis during testimony.

Alas, let's say you have convinced me with all this. I'd be left to say simply this: What a stroke of luck for Cross! He kills Nichols. Opts to stay on the spot and await the arrival of the unknown man he hears walking toward him down Bucks Row... and, eureka! The man happens to be Robert Paul! A man whose HATRED of the police will allow Cross to perform his "Mizen Scam", lie under oath, and hang poor Mizen out to dry. I've said this before: The only way this chain of events works for Cross, had he killed Nichols, is if he knew the future:

- He kills and mutilates Nichols
- He hears footsteps
- Rather than walk on in the blackness he stays on the spot because he knows this man isn't a PC, former PC, off-duty PC, or ANYONE who may take charge of the scene
- The man arrives and tries to walk past but he will not allow him to do so because he knows its better to recruit this man because he knows he will abet his lies and allow him to get away with murder
- He tells the man there's a woman lying on the ground, touching his shoulder to get his attention because he knows that there is no blood on his hands even though he's just killed and dissected a woman and stowed the bloody knife on his person
- He and the man go to inspect Nichols and he knows the man will not begin shouting, raise the alarm, knock on doors, begin shouting for a PC and blow the whole plan before it begins
- Her wounds are not visible because of the darkness but he knows that Paul doesn't have a match with which to light the scene
- Paul wants to give her a prop but he refuses because he knows there's no blood on his person that may have to be explained at any point in this bluff he's undertaken that he knows will not end in a police station or, at the very least, under a PC's lantern
- Rather than tell Paul he works in the other direction (the direction he knew from which Paul had come) he agrees to continue on with Paul to find a PC because he knows the PC will not subject him to his lantern, search him and find the knife
- He finds Mizen in Baker's Row and tells him there's a woman lying in Buck's Row and that she's likely dead and that he's wanted by a PC because he knows Mizen will simply accept that information rather than say "show me" or "take me there", he knows also that Paul will not contradict him (or that he'll give him the privacy he needs to tell his lie privately to Mizen) because he knew before all this began that Paul hated the police, he also knew that Mizen would allow him to simply walk away without so much as asking his name
- After committing murder and getting away from the scene, he shows up voluntarily at the inquest in spite of the fact that Paul's Lloyd's statement relegates him to bit player status, he's described only as a "a man", and Paul doesn't even say that he (Cross) was a part of the interaction with Mizen but he testifies because he knows that he's in no danger of facing scrutiny of any kind that may lead to suspicion that he killed Nichols
- He contradicts the testimony of Mizen under oath because he knew that Paul will not disagree (if he heard the exchange) or volunteer Cross conspicuously had a conversation with Mizen (that he was happy to ignore while standing alone in the dark) that he could not hear because he knew that Paul so hated the police that he would allow all of his lies and master manipulation in a murder investigation.

[Fisherman]

I see. Your "evidence" that Robert Paul was anti-Police is to quote your partner in all things Lechmere, Edward Stow (who used to post here under name "Lechmere", coincidentally enough)... and a statement by Paul the he was annoyed at the inconvenience the Nichols matter caused him. Rather than conclude that Robert Paul wasn't a rich man and that losing a days wages may have impacted and rightly annoyed the man, you contend that some pre-existing police hatred (for which you have not one shred of evidence to suggest existed) compelled him to make anti-police statements and offer false testimony at a murder inquest. Further, he allowed Cross to lie under oath. He failed to be truthful and agree with Mizen when he testified that Cross had told him (Mizen) he was wanted by a PC, when Cross had in fact done just that.... just to stick it to the police (?). Either that or Paul watched like an imbecile as Cross pulled Mizen aside and whispered to him in Baker's Row, and never felt compelled to mention it to anyone, even as Mizen's claim of having been told of a PC in Bucks Row became a point of emphasis during testimony.

Alas, let's say you have convinced me with all this. I'd be left to say simply this: What a stroke of luck for Cross! He kills Nichols. Opts to stay on the spot and await the arrival of the unknown man he hears walking toward him down Bucks Row... and, eureka! The man happens to be Robert Paul! A man whose HATRED of the police will allow Cross to perform his "Mizen Scam", lie under oath, and hang poor Mizen out to dry. I've said this before: The only way this chain of events works for Cross, had he killed Nichols, is if he knew the future:

- He kills and mutilates Nichols
- He hears footsteps
- Rather than walk on in the blackness he stays on the spot because he knows this man isn't a PC, former PC, off-duty PC, or ANYONE who may take charge of the scene
- The man arrives and tries to walk past but he will not allow him to do so because he knows its better to recruit this man because he knows he will abet his lies and allow him to get away with murder
- He tells the man there's a woman lying on the ground, touching his shoulder to get his attention because he knows that there is no blood on his hands even though he's just killed and dissected a woman and stowed the bloody knife on his person
- He and the man go to inspect Nichols and he knows the man will not begin shouting, raise the alarm, knock on doors, begin shouting for a PC and blow the whole plan before it begins
- Her wounds are not visible because of the darkness but he knows that Paul doesn't have a match with which to light the scene
- Paul wants to give her a prop but he refuses because he knows there's no blood on his person that may have to be explained at any point in this bluff he's undertaken that he knows will not end in a police station or, at the very least, under a PC's lantern
- Rather than tell Paul he works in the other direction (the direction he knew from which Paul had come) he agrees to continue on with Paul to find a PC because he knows the PC will not subject him to his lantern, search him and find the knife
- He finds Mizen in Baker's Row and tells him there's a woman lying in Buck's Row and that she's likely dead and that he's wanted by a PC because he knows Mizen will simply accept that information rather than say "show me" or "take me there", he knows also that Paul will not contradict him (or that he'll give him the privacy he needs to tell his lie privately to Mizen) because he knew before all this began that Paul hated the police, he also knew that Mizen would allow him to simply walk away without so much as asking his name
- After committing murder and getting away from the scene, he shows up voluntarily at the inquest in spite of the fact that Paul's Lloyd's statement relegates him to bit player status, he's described only as a "a man", and Paul doesn't even say that he (Cross) was a part of the interaction with Mizen but he testifies because he knows that he's in no danger of facing scrutiny of any kind that may lead to suspicion that he killed Nichols
- He contradicts the testimony of Mizen under oath because he knew that Paul will not disagree (if he heard the exchange) or volunteer Cross conspicuously had a conversation with Mizen (that he was happy to ignore while standing alone in the dark) that he could not hear because he knew that Paul so hated the police that he would allow all of his lies and master manipulation in a murder investigation.

Lechmere could not foresee what would happen when he killed Nichols. Nobody can. And still they do, and then they take it from there. Some think on their feet, some don't.

Big deal, eh, Patrick?

You know, your reasoning has similarities with communism - if it had only worked, it would be absolutely beautiful. If potential killers had realized the risks, nobody would get killed.

Nice as it sounds, I don't buy into it.

[Patrick S]

Lechmere could not foresee what would happen when he killed Nichols. Nobody can. And still they do, and then they take it from there.

Big deal, eh, Patrick?

You know, your reasoning has similarities with communism - if it had only worked, it would be absolutely beautiful. If potential killers had realized the risks, nobody would get killed.

Nice as it sounds, I don't buy into it.

How dare you. Communism!

And if all serial killers understood the risks and plotted courses through them as you have Cross doing, every potential serial killer would become an actual serial killer, everyone would be killed, and no one would even be suspected of having killed them.

The point is not whether or not Cross did or did not realize the risks. But, rather that he seems to have anticipated the solutions to risks he himself took for reasons that make no sense IF one assumes he killed Nichols and that his objective was to get away with killing her. In my view, his actions presented no risks and are more understandable if one considers that he did NOT kill Nichols, but did find body lying in Bucks Row.

To be clear, I certainly don't expect you to agree! And I know you don't expect me to agree. But, I enjoy the debate and I don't begrudge you your opinion or disparage your work around Lechmere. I appreciate your willingness to engage, as well.