Lechmere The Psychopath

[Rainbow]

I will say, he spotted him red-handed , and blue handed!

Blue for breathing
and Red for the bleeding

Red-handed and Blue-handed

That is called, Multi-tasking!

[Henry Flower]

I will say, he spotted him red-handed , and blue handed!

Blue for breathing
and Red for the bleeding

Red-handed and Blue-handed

That is called, Multi-tasking!

And I thought it was Steve who had been drinking all day....

[Elamarna]

I will say, he spotted him red-handed , and blue handed!

Blue for breathing
and Red for the bleeding

Red-handed and Blue-handed

That is called, Multi-tasking!

Pointless post.
It is not a game.


Steve

[Elamarna]

And I thought it was Steve who had been drinking all day....

Only 3 pints. More the shame.

Just got home.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Actually yes, he Did spot Lechmere, but not only this:

He spotted him red-handed too!

The killer's hands would indeed have been red, which begs the question: why didn't Lechmere - f*** it, Cross - not only linger with Paul, but accompanied him to find, and actually talk at some length to, a police officer?

The idea that Cross was the killer is entirely incongruent with such considerations.

[Fisherman]

The killer's hands would indeed have been red, which begs the question: why didn't Lechmere - f*** it, Cross - not only linger with Paul, but accompanied him to find, and actually talk at some length to, a police officer?

The idea that Cross was the killer is entirely incongruent with such considerations.

So you say.

But the fact of the matter is that Lechmere - not Cross - was left with a choice between two things only:

1. Run
2. Stay

And Andy Griffiths tells me that he would never have run, given the situation.

So we are left with him staying - which indeed he did. And once that decision is taken, all that comes with it must be considered and dealt with too.

There is also Jason Payne-James to take in: "There would not necessarily have been much blood discenable on him - if any".
So Payne-James tells us that he need not have a single speck of blood on his hands. Working from the idea that he must have had blood there is simply not presenting a fully informed picture.

I think that the statements from these two men leave us in an entirely different place than the one you prefer to stand on. Normally, you try to weigh in all possibilities, but when it comes to Lechmere, your thinking have gotten a tad onesided lately. You may need to amend that.

[Patrick S]

So you say.

But the fact of the matter is that Lechmere - not Cross - was left with a choice between two things only:

1. Run
2. Stay

And Andy Griffiths tells me that he would never have run, given the situation.

So we are left with him staying - which indeed he did. And once that decision is taken, all that comes with it must be considered and dealt with too.

There is also Jason Payne-James to take in: "There would not necessarily have been much blood discenable on him - if any".
So Payne-James tells us that he need not have a single speck of blood on his hands. Working from the idea that he must have had blood there is simply not presenting a fully informed picture.

I think that the statements from these two men leave us in an entirely different place than the one you prefer to stand on. Normally, you try to weigh in all possibilities, but when it comes to Lechmere, your thinking have gotten a tad onesided lately. You may need to amend that.

With all due respect to the parties involved, yourself included, WHY would he not have run (or, as we've established he easily could have, simply walked)? I have posted here several treatises detailing the human "fight or flight" instinct, as well as how legal systems view "fight or flight" actions as indicative of a "consciousness of guilt".

To my original question: I contend that he didn't run, walk, approached Paul, found Mizen, attended the inquest, because he didn't kill Nichols and - as has been believed for a century - simply found her lying on pavement and acted accordingly. I know that you've contended that he didn't run because he was psychopath. Thus, the normal "fight or flight" rules that govern you, me, Andy Griffiths, and Jason Payne-James wouldn't apply to him. Thus, he'd be capable of an elaborate, prolonged bluff. A scam that, the non-psychopath couldn't conceive of, much less execute.

So, that leads to this question: Does Andy Griffiths think that your "carman" was a psychopath, as well? I ask because - in addition to having studied the research on "fight or flight" and how it drives the actions of individuals outside the psychopathic spectrum - I've had separate conversations with two homicide detectives. Both have described "the carman's" actions as betraying no consciousness of guilt and consistent with what a normally adjusted, reasonably moral person who didn't kill Nichols but found her body would do. Both indicated that, even if the man were a psychopath he'd likely opt for the simplest avenue for extricating himself from the situation, but that his actions would make more sense - assuming he killed Nichols - were he a psychopath. So, is that the answer for Andy? That Cross was a psychopath?

Lastly, let's be somewhat realistic, Christer. Andy Griffiths could not very well have appeared in the documentary and told you that you were dead wrong, or disagreed with you on key points that drive your conclusion. I've watched it several times. He agrees with every point you make, every inference you make, every assumption. Let's not pretend otherwise. That's what he was paid to do.

[Abby Normal]

The killer's hands would indeed have been red, which begs the question: why didn't Lechmere - f*** it, Cross - not only linger with Paul, but accompanied him to find, and actually talk at some length to, a police officer?

The idea that Cross was the killer is entirely incongruent with such considerations.

hi Sam
if you mean red with blood, I'm not so sure. especially if Polly was already dead when the cuts were made. no organs removed so it s not like he was rooting around in there.

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: With all due respect to the parties involved, yourself included, WHY would he not have run (or, as we've established he easily could have, simply walked)? I have posted here several treatises detailing the human "fight or flight" instinct, as well as how legal systems view "fight or flight" actions as indicative of a "consciousness of guilt".

And I have posted how psychopaths work, what the startle reflex is and how they lack it to a smaller or lesser degree, how they are unable to panick, how their muscles will not prepare them for flight even in dangerous surroundings. Did you not read that? Did you simply find it uninteresting? Did you conclude that since it is not proven that Lechmere was a psychopath, there is no need to inform oneself about how psychopaths work?
I have answered the "why did he not run"-question a hundred times and more. Do you really want me to do it again? Is that not superfluous? Are you not aware of how my answer looks?

To my original question: I contend that he didn't run, walk, approached Paul, found Mizen, attended the inquest, because he didn't kill Nichols and - as has been believed for a century - simply found her lying on pavement and acted accordingly. I know that you've contended that he didn't run because he was psychopath. Thus, the normal "fight or flight" rules that govern you, me, Andy Griffiths, and Jason Payne-James wouldn't apply to him. Thus, he'd be capable of an elaborate, prolonged bluff. A scam that, the non-psychopath couldn't conceive of, much less execute.

Oh, I think many people could conceive of such a plan, non-psychopaths included. But they would be unlikely to pull it off without getting it wrong, panicking and suchlike, and they would be likely to have left the area before Paul arrived.
And yes, a clever psychopath would be able to pull off just about any sort of scam with no hesitation and no outward signs telling the story. Plus, whereas when you and me would be nervous performing - or trying to perform - it, a psychopath may well quite enjoy the proceedings and have a really rewarding time.
Can I ask you, Patrick: Just how much have you read up on psychopathy? How aquainted are you with how it works and what it enables people to do? Because if you are not well read up on it, there is no much use having this discussion.
They are fearless, arrogant creatures with no ability to feel remorse - but they know exactly how to feign it. They are very apt imitators of normal human feelings without feeling them themselves. To know their ilk is essential to the whole argument about Lechmere being the Whitechapel killer.

So, that leads to this question: Does Andy Griffiths think that your "carman" was a psychopath, as well?

I have not asked him and he has not offered any view on it, but I think that there can be no reason to doubt that this is his picture too, if one works from the idea that Lechmere was the killer.

I ask because - in addition to having studied the research on "fight or flight" and how it drives the actions of individuals outside the psychopathic spectrum - I've had separate conversations with two homicide detectives. Both have described "the carman's" actions as betraying no consciousness of guilt and consistent with what a normally adjusted, reasonably moral person who didn't kill Nichols but found her body would do.

That is because the carmans actions would not betray any guilt at all if he was of a psychopathic nature. That is the precise thing I am telling you - he pulled of a scam, and it was totally impossible for Paul or Mizen or the coroner and jury to realize that. Psychopaths are extremely skilful liars and they are very willing to lie. It is their very nature.

Both indicated that, even if the man were a psychopath he'd likely opt for the simplest avenue for extricating himself from the situation, but that his actions would make more sense - assuming he killed Nichols - were he a psychopath. So, is that the answer for Andy? That Cross was a psychopath?

I myself believe that if Lechmere was the killer and if he judged that he stood a better chance avoiding capture by running/walking, then he would have done precisely that. I think the fact that he stayed pout reveals to us how he did the maths the other way, either because Paul was too near when he noticed him to enable an undetected flight, or because he knew quite well that he ran the risk of running into PC:s and watchmen as Paul arrived at the body and would possibly raise the alarm.
Thatīs the thing with psychopaths: since they do not panick, they are able to very cooly weigh the circumstances up in a clear and concise manner, missing out on nothing.
You and me, we would get all shaky, and we would very likely not be able to get our thoughts straight, and so we would be extremely likely to decide "What the hell, I gotta get out of here!", consequences or no consequences.
It is vital that you understand that I am not saying that psychopaths PREFER to stay put on a crime scene - I am saying that every once in a while the circumstances can make them opt for that being the less risky thing.

That is my reflection of the rational thinking within a psychopath. But there is also one more thing: Even if it is not the least risky choice, a psychopath can STILL choose to stay put at a murder site, for the sheer fun of it. They are extremely arrogant and self-secure, and they may overestimate themselves for that reason. It is what enables them to step into a hailstorm of bullets in war, reasoning "I am the better man, and I WILL win this, so I wonīt get hit".

It is another factor that must be considered.

IN the end, I am glad to see that the specialists you spoke to agreed that if Lechmere was the killer, his actions at the scene would make more sense if he was a psychopath. To me, they would make sense ONLY if this was so.

Lastly, let's be somewhat realistic, Christer. Andy Griffiths could not very well have appeared in the documentary and told you that you were dead wrong, or disagreed with you on key points that drive your conclusion. I've watched it several times. He agrees with every point you make, every inference you make, every assumption. Let's not pretend otherwise. That's what he was paid to do.

Thatīs way beyond the belt, and you should not be too proud of yourself saying it. He was not payed to agree with me, he was payed to give his view. He disagreed with how both Edward and I think that Lechmereīs approach to Paul in Bucks Row was very odd, for example, and found nothing strange in it at all. Itīs another thing if the film crew do not present such a passage since they are making a case for Lechmere as the killer, but it certainly shows that Griffiths was NOT payed to agree with me. The mere suggestion is an insult towards him, I am sorry to say.

I have said this before but I am happy to do so again. After we had shot the scenes in Bucks Row, Andy Griffiths came up to me and said, off the record and camera something like: "I really think thereīs a good chance that you have the right man!"
That was his private conviction, and I donīt remember anybody from Blink Films shoving a ten pund note into his pocket for it. They didnīt even hear it, sine it was a private comment, and I treated it as such.

[caz]

Paul says he thought Nichols was breathing at 3:45am. We KNOW that when Neil shined his light, what is it, five, eight minutes later.....that her head has been (nearly) detached from her body. Thus, what's LIKELY is that Paul was mistaken. She wasn't breathing.

Cross waited for Paul to get to where he was. He called to him to look at the woman on the ground. Paul tried to avoid him. Cross persisted...."Come see.." Was this some grand ruse or simply a guy who acting like anyone (other than Rainbow) would had he found a woman lying on the street?...HE TOLD SOMEONE (rather than run screaming into the night). So, what common sense tell us is its LIKELY that he didn't kill Nichols.

Mizen says he was told that he was "wanted" by a PC in Buck's Row. Cross says flatly that no one told him that was the case. Paul doesn't mention it, but he does mention that Mizen didn't much react to the news of a woman (Paul says a "DEAD" woman) and that he didn't say if he should come or not. What a great shame...since he'd been "told the woman was dead". Thus, its clear Mizen would benefit from selling a story about another PC. So...what's LIKELY is that Mizen fudged things a bit....to make him look....NOT QUITE as bad has Paul made him out in Lloyd's.

Of course, Patrick, Mizen would also benefit from a strenuous denial that he was told by either man that the woman was, or could be dead. Is this perhaps evidence that Mizen was aware of what Paul had been saying about him in the papers? Or did Mizen just state what he remembered of the brief conversation before he went on with his knocking up?

Another point is that we are asked to believe Paul was out of earshot for all or part of that conversation, during which Cross lied to Mizen about this other PC at the scene. If Paul didn't have a clue what was being said to Mizen while he was out of earshot, he must have been almost as brazen as Cross is supposed to have been, to guess what Mizen was told by Cross and tell the world that he did the talking himself!

Again, if Mizen was aware of what both Paul and Cross had to say about the matter, and knew they were both lying and making a monkey out of him in the process, he doesn't seem to have kicked up much of a fuss about it, all things considered. On the contrary, he comes across as the one who felt obliged to paper over the cracks. Why wasn't he boiling over with rage at being so badly misrepresented by these two characters?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

hi Sam
if you mean red with blood, I'm not so sure. especially if Polly was already dead when the cuts were made. no organs removed so it s not like he was rooting around in there.

There had been a significant outpouring of blood, with deep wounds in the throat and abdomen, so there was a strong possibility that the killer would have been contaminated with blood. Even if he hadn't been, how could he have been sure that his hands and/or clothing were clean, given the dim lighting conditions? If he didn't know for sure, he was taking one hell of a risk in trailing along with Paul, to say nothing of seeking out, and having a conversation with, a policeman.

[Elamarna]

Hi

There had been a significant outpouring of blood, with deep wounds in the throat and abdomen, so there was a strong possibility that the killer would have been contaminated with blood. Even if he hadn't been, how could he have been sure that his hands and/or clothing were clean, given the dim lighting conditions? If he didn't know for sure, he was taking one hell of a risk in trailing along with Paul, to say nothing of seeking out, and having a conversation with, a policeman.

Let me just add something here.

Not going into details, but in my professional career, I undertook many procedures that could be equated with the wounds to Nichols (non human, I should say).
To suggest he could walk away unmarked by blood is the view of someone with no experience of what is involved.

He may have escaped from the Neck with little blood on his clothing, but may have had some on his hands. However with the abdominal wounds it is unrealistic to say his hands would not have blood on them, and if as Fish speculate that a major vessel was cut in this area, the suggestion he would be blood free is somewhat misguided to say the least.


Steve

[Patrick S]

Patrick S: With all due respect to the parties involved, yourself included, WHY would he not have run (or, as we've established he easily could have, simply walked)? I have posted here several treatises detailing the human "fight or flight" instinct, as well as how legal systems view "fight or flight" actions as indicative of a "consciousness of guilt".

And I have posted how psychopaths work, what the startle reflex is and how they lack it to a smaller or lesser degree, how they are unable to panick, how their muscles will not prepare them for flight even in dangerous surroundings. Did you not read that? Did you simply find it uninteresting? Did you conclude that since it is not proven that Lechmere was a psychopath, there is no need to inform oneself about how psychopaths work?
I have answered the "why did he not run"-question a hundred times and more. Do you really want me to do it again? Is that not superfluous? Are you not aware of how my answer looks?

To my original question: I contend that he didn't run, walk, approached Paul, found Mizen, attended the inquest, because he didn't kill Nichols and - as has been believed for a century - simply found her lying on pavement and acted accordingly. I know that you've contended that he didn't run because he was psychopath. Thus, the normal "fight or flight" rules that govern you, me, Andy Griffiths, and Jason Payne-James wouldn't apply to him. Thus, he'd be capable of an elaborate, prolonged bluff. A scam that, the non-psychopath couldn't conceive of, much less execute.

Oh, I think many people could conceive of such a plan, non-psychopaths included. But they would be unlikely to pull it off without getting it wrong, panicking and suchlike, and they would be likely to have left the area before Paul arrived.
And yes, a clever psychopath would be able to pull off just about any sort of scam with no hesitation and no outward signs telling the story. Plus, whereas when you and me would be nervous performing - or trying to perform - it, a psychopath may well quite enjoy the proceedings and have a really rewarding time.
Can I ask you, Patrick: Just how much have you read up on psychopathy? How aquainted are you with how it works and what it enables people to do? Because if you are not well read up on it, there is no much use having this discussion.
They are fearless, arrogant creatures with no ability to feel remorse - but they know exactly how to feign it. They are very apt imitators of normal human feelings without feeling them themselves. To know their ilk is essential to the whole argument about Lechmere being the Whitechapel killer.

So, that leads to this question: Does Andy Griffiths think that your "carman" was a psychopath, as well?

I have not asked him and he has not offered any view on it, but I think that there can be no reason to doubt that this is his picture too, if one works from the idea that Lechmere was the killer.

I ask because - in addition to having studied the research on "fight or flight" and how it drives the actions of individuals outside the psychopathic spectrum - I've had separate conversations with two homicide detectives. Both have described "the carman's" actions as betraying no consciousness of guilt and consistent with what a normally adjusted, reasonably moral person who didn't kill Nichols but found her body would do.

That is because the carmans actions would not betray any guilt at all if he was of a psychopathic nature. That is the precise thing I am telling you - he pulled of a scam, and it was totally impossible for Paul or Mizen or the coroner and jury to realize that. Psychopaths are extremely skilful liars and they are very willing to lie. It is their very nature.

Both indicated that, even if the man were a psychopath he'd likely opt for the simplest avenue for extricating himself from the situation, but that his actions would make more sense - assuming he killed Nichols - were he a psychopath. So, is that the answer for Andy? That Cross was a psychopath?

I myself believe that if Lechmere was the killer and if he judged that he stood a better chance avoiding capture by running/walking, then he would have done precisely that. I think the fact that he stayed pout reveals to us how he did the maths the other way, either because Paul was too near when he noticed him to enable an undetected flight, or because he knew quite well that he ran the risk of running into PC:s and watchmen as Paul arrived at the body and would possibly raise the alarm.
Thatīs the thing with psychopaths: since they do not panick, they are able to very cooly weigh the circumstances up in a clear and concise manner, missing out on nothing.
You and me, we would get all shaky, and we would very likely not be able to get our thoughts straight, and so we would be extremely likely to decide "What the hell, I gotta get out of here!", consequences or no consequences.
It is vital that you understand that I am not saying that psychopaths PREFER to stay put on a crime scene - I am saying that every once in a while the circumstances can make them opt for that being the less risky thing.

That is my reflection of the rational thinking within a psychopath. But there is also one more thing: Even if it is not the least risky choice, a psychopath can STILL choose to stay put at a murder site, for the sheer fun of it. They are extremely arrogant and self-secure, and they may overestimate themselves for that reason. It is what enables them to step into a hailstorm of bullets in war, reasoning "I am the better man, and I WILL win this, so I wonīt get hit".

It is another factor that must be considered.

IN the end, I am glad to see that the specialists you spoke to agreed that if Lechmere was the killer, his actions at the scene would make more sense if he was a psychopath. To me, they would make sense ONLY if this was so.

Lastly, let's be somewhat realistic, Christer. Andy Griffiths could not very well have appeared in the documentary and told you that you were dead wrong, or disagreed with you on key points that drive your conclusion. I've watched it several times. He agrees with every point you make, every inference you make, every assumption. Let's not pretend otherwise. That's what he was paid to do.

Thatīs way beyond the belt, and you should not be too proud of yourself saying it. He was not payed to agree with me, he was payed to give his view. He disagreed with how both Edward and I think that Lechmereīs approach to Paul in Bucks Row was very odd, for example, and found nothing strange in it at all. Itīs another thing if the film crew do not present such a passage since they are making a case for Lechmere as the killer, but it certainly shows that Griffiths was NOT payed to agree with me. The mere suggestion is an insult towards him, I am sorry to say.

I have said this before but I am happy to do so again. After we had shot the scenes in Bucks Row, Andy Griffiths came up to me and said, off the record and camera something like: "I really think thereīs a good chance that you have the right man!"
That was his private conviction, and I donīt remember anybody from Blink Films shoving a ten pund note into his pocket for it. They didnīt even hear it, sine it was a private comment, and I treated it as such.

A few things worth addressing, though not many. First, yes. I've read a great deal on psychopaths, psychopathy, etc. I've also read a lot about dinosaurs. And I don't think "the carman" was either.

Second, you say he did the math and realized he stood a better chance standing his ground, bluffing and Mizen scamming. Rather than simply....walking away. Of course, this absurd, unless, of course, we sign up for more invention (a word I know you enjoy). What possible barriers existed that would have precluded him form walking away? The deserted streets? The darkness? The menacing Paul bearing down on him with intent? Give us ACTUAL barriers, not things you supposed MAY have been there because "the carman" was a psychopath because whoever killed Nichols was psychopath, and since "the carman" killed her, he must have been a psychopath.

Again, the most notable thing you say in this post - and many others - is the bit about working from the viewpoint that "the carman" did it. I hope those new here read it. Of course, this isn't something any investigator, "murder squad leader", detective, or amateur sleuth would ever do...... but it's in full employ whenever we discuss "the carman" because - of course - the conversation would be so very brief if we didn't.

Lastly, nothing I've said about Andy Griffiths is "beyond the belt". I don't know the man. Let's not behave childishly. And let's not pretend his performance in the documentary is beyond question. I stand by what I said. He was paid. He did his bit. The objective was to present the narrative: Lechmere the Ripper. Not Andy poo-poos the theory and debates Christer. If you were to watch a Tervor Marriot presented documentary and his "murder squad" expert felt that Feigenbaum was likely the Ripper I'm quite sure you'd not view the man's statements unassailable. Chances are this Griffith's has not given it much thought since filming. And why would he? I'm sure his positive words made you toasty inside and I'm sure you'll treasure that moment. Frankly, I wonder what his thoughts might be if he were to be exposed to just a few of the opposition points made on this board. And if he still feels there's a good chance your "carman" was Jack the Ripper, well, then I'd have very little respect for his opinion. Has he taken his advocacy for Lechmere as the Ripper to any venues outside the documentary?

Frankly, I'd love to discuss the matter with him, as you've often presented him as a staunch advocate and subscriber to your theory. I'll buy the man a beer or two before I recruit him to my way of thinking.

[Patrick S]

Of course, Patrick, Mizen would also benefit from a strenuous denial that he was told by either man that the woman was, or could be dead. Is this perhaps evidence that Mizen was aware of what Paul had been saying about him in the papers? Or did Mizen just state what he remembered of the brief conversation before he went on with his knocking up?

Another point is that we are asked to believe Paul was out of earshot for all or part of that conversation, during which Cross lied to Mizen about this other PC at the scene. If Paul didn't have a clue what was being said to Mizen while he was out of earshot, he must have been almost as brazen as Cross is supposed to have been, to guess what Mizen was told by Cross and tell the world that he did the talking himself!

Again, if Mizen was aware of what both Paul and Cross had to say about the matter, and knew they were both lying and making a monkey out of him in the process, he doesn't seem to have kicked up much of a fuss about it, all things considered. On the contrary, he comes across as the one who felt obliged to paper over the cracks. Why wasn't he boiling over with rage at being so badly misrepresented by these two characters?

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you, caz. All points I've made in detail. Very good points about what came out of the inconsistencies presented at the inquest. A PC testified that a witness was LYING on the stand. And what happened? Would that not be reason to, perhaps, investigate this "carman" more closely? If that happened, there appears to have not been much to hold the police's interest, since it took Christer, Eddie, and Rainbow to know the truth all these years later.

[Fisherman]

caz: Of course, Patrick, Mizen would also benefit from a strenuous denial that he was told by either man that the woman was, or could be dead. Is this perhaps evidence that Mizen was aware of what Paul had been saying about him in the papers? Or did Mizen just state what he remembered of the brief conversation before he went on with his knocking up?

Once more, Mizen was first to take the stand. Whatever lie he presented would reasonably be revealed and gainsaid by both carmen, leaving Mizen looking rather sad.
Did you forget that, or do you think that Mizen didnīt care about it? It would effectively result in that 2-1 advantage of the carmen, and I am constantly being told how this means that Mizen was wrong.
Kind of backfires now, eh?

Another point is that we are asked to believe Paul was out of earshot for all or part of that conversation, during which Cross lied to Mizen about this other PC at the scene.

No, Caz, you re not asked to believe anything. Well, you are kindly asked not to misrepresent me any further, but thatīs another matter.
I find it the explanation that is best covered by the evidence, but I am keeping the possibility open that Lechmere and Paul had agreed to con the PC when they met him, in order to get to work earlier. I think Lechere may have presented such an opportunity if he did not go for getting Paul out of earshot.

If Paul didn't have a clue what was being said to Mizen while he was out of earshot, he must have been almost as brazen as Cross is supposed to have been, to guess what Mizen was told by Cross and tell the world that he did the talking himself!

Or he asked Lechmere "what did you say to him"? Or the carmen decided together wgat to say.

But nah - it couldnīt be THAT simple, could it?

Again, if Mizen was aware of what both Paul and Cross had to say about the matter, and knew they were both lying and making a monkey out of him in the process, he doesn't seem to have kicked up much of a fuss about it, all things considered. On the contrary, he comes across as the one who felt obliged to paper over the cracks. Why wasn't he boiling over with rage at being so badly misrepresented by these two characters?

How do you know that he didnīt boil over? Did you check with him, Caz? How do you know that he meekly accepted it? How do you know that he did not go to his superiors and complaint about it? How do you know how that turned out?

Conversely, how do we know that Mizen didnīt think "Strange, I must have misunderstood the man"?

But again, it could not possibly be that simple, could it?