Hi Fishy,
But before that night was even over, Mizen knew that the woman was not merely drunk, but horribly murdered, and not long before the two carmen must have seen her lying there. So what possibly reason could he have had for not reporting the whole story as soon as possible, if the truth was so innocent, ie that he had been led to believe this was just another drunken unfortunate, already being dealt with by a police officer? But then how many coppers does that take? And if Mizen’s answer would be two, how many carmen does it take to fetch the second copper? Something’s not adding up, and this was Mizen’s account, which you argue he only reluctantly gave when he could no longer pretend his encounter with the two witnesses from Buck’s Row had never happened.
But don’t you see, Fishy? That’s precisely the problem here and it’s all in the timing. Mizen would have said as much straight away if it were true. What more perfect excuse could he have had for not hot-footing it to the scene or taking any witness details? A mere drunk with a policeman already in attendance, who had asked two passing carmen to fetch assistance? Why would he or his ‘trustworthy colleague’ have felt the need to ‘check them out’ under those circumstances?
Why does Mizen only give this perfectly reasonable (or conveniently arse-covering) account of his actions when he can no longer pretend to have no knowledge of anyone coming from Buck’s Row? What would he have had to fear from describing his encounter with the carmen the moment he learned the woman’s real fate, if his version of it was the plain unvarnished truth? According to his own belated account, he had done very little wrong and could hardly have been blamed. So why was it so belated and why did he deny any of it initially, unless the truth could have got him into much more serious trouble?
Exactly so, an ‘understandable mistake’ if he was only informed that the woman was drunk and a policeman had sent the men to fetch assistance for her. Certainly not worth risking his career and his livelihood by denying anything of the sort had happened, only to have to admit it later, when the men talked and it was inevitable that he would be identified as the officer they had approached. He could hardly have gone on denying everything, with not one but two witnesses describing much the same event. But he could limit the personal damage significantly with the version he eventually came up with.
Love,
Caz
X
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Why does Mizen only give this perfectly reasonable (or conveniently arse-covering) account of his actions when he can no longer pretend to have no knowledge of anyone coming from Buck’s Row? What would he have had to fear from describing his encounter with the carmen the moment he learned the woman’s real fate, if his version of it was the plain unvarnished truth? According to his own belated account, he had done very little wrong and could hardly have been blamed. So why was it so belated and why did he deny any of it initially, unless the truth could have got him into much more serious trouble?
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
Love,
Caz
X
Comment