Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[Fisherman]

That has nothing to do with the fact that you have claimed that Caz is right since "her arguments and reasonings are valid."

You will know, I believe, that in unsettled errands more than one theory may be valid? And you will also know, I believe, that when something is not proven, you cannot state that somebody is right? Being right is a produce of having proven a theory, or having had it proven.

So howīs it gonna be? Is Caz right? Or is she only possibly right?

And does that make you wrong? Donīt answer that one, David - we KNOW the answer already. You ARE wrong. Again. But you donīt seem to care much about such worldly matters, do you? Just go ahead and spew out falsities, itīs a lot funnier, isnīt it?

Sad indeed, David.

Fisherman

[DVV]

What is sad, Fish, is to hear you hammering "I'm right and you all are wrong".
And I have no problem saying Caz was right, because her reasoning and mine are quite the same.
I don't think I have to ask more questions on your theory. You're unable to accept any objection.
You have a theory, and everything has to be evidence that Cross is the Ripper. How clear. How sad.
It was dark and Paul hurried trying to avoid Cross, but, hey ! hailing Paul was the best thing the Ripper could do !!
Paul talked to a journalist as soon as Friday evening, Mizen went to the spot in time and helped his colleagues, but hey !! nothing had leaked out regarding the carmen !!
As for Lechmere, he has to be the Ripper because he presented himself as Cross - even though that name of Cross wasn't an alias. The reason ? You said it was because of his wife... even though he gave his correct address and trade....and of course, his wife never knew that Cross was his stepfather's name !!
How convincing.
And while I'm at it, you didn't answer my post on the other thread. Indeed, once you have argued that you chose to believe Mizen because the satanic Lechmere passed himself as Cross, it's not easy to explain why you don't trust Paul... who was just Paul.
Nuff said.
I guess you will reply that I'm digging another grave, or something of the kind, but such replies may well be the reason why other posters don't bother anymore discussing this wobbling theory.
Good night, Fish.
See you on other threads.
Perhaps Lechmere was the Ripper, who knows, but I'm sure things did not happen as you think they did.
The carmen never told Mizen that he was wanted by a fellow constable and the Lloyds did spark off no cataclysm.

[Fisherman]

David:

"What is sad, Fish, is to hear you hammering "I'm right and you all are wrong"."

You only hear half of that, David - and you ARE wrong. It IS impossible to conclude that Caz is right, as you did, and therefore you are wrong.

"I have no problem saying Caz was right, because her reasoning and mine are quite the same."

Stupefaction, Iīm afraid. Unworthy of any logical reason, intellectually corrupt and beyond pathetic. I agree with Lechmere (the poster), so with your line of reasoning, that makes ME right! Meaning that Caz and I are of totally differing meanings - and both right? Try selling that somewhere else, David.

"...while I'm at it..."

Donīt be, David. It serves no good end at all.

"I'm sure things did not happen as you think they did."

Unworthy of any logical reason, intellectually corrupt and beyond pathetic once again. You THINK that this is so, but you are not certain. Perhaps you wish with all of your heart that this is so ("Please God, donīt let him be right, le me - ME! - be right", sort of) but we cannot reshape history. Therefore we cannot be sure that what we hope is also what happened. The sooner you respect this, the better.

"The carmen never told Mizen that he was wanted by a fellow constable and the Lloyds did spark off no cataclysm."

Childish. And itīs carMAN, not carmen.

Fisherman

[DVV]

David:
"The carmen never told Mizen that he was wanted by a fellow constable and the Lloyds did spark off no cataclysm."
Childish. And itīs carMAN, not carmen.
Fisherman

Hi Fish. You really need to bury Paul's interview and testimony. For obvious and pathetic reasons.

[Fisherman]

If you had lived up to the most basic of standards for conducting a discussion out here, I would consider taking advice from you. As it stands, no.

That ends my discussion with you. It has descended into quibble only.

The moment you have something useful to offer, I will reconsider.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

Okay, let's go with the notion that Cross really did tell Mizen, when Paul was conveniently out of earshot, that he and Paul had been sent by a copper in Buck's Row to fetch another copper to assist with a woman who was lying there, and that Mizen wasn't told by either man that she could be dead or dying.

Have I got the gospel according to Fishy right so far?

If so, I put it to you that it makes no sense at all for Mizen not to have mentioned the episode, and to have actually denied seeing anybody coming from Buck's Row attracting attention. Why? Because if he believed that PC Neil had sent the two carmen to do just that, and to fetch him back to the scene, he would be expecting Neil to include it in his own account:

"I sent two carmen to fetch assistance, and it came in the form of PC Mizen".

Now we know that Neil saw no carmen and sent for nobody, but that Mizen arrived all the same. No doubt he was relieved to see Neil already there, but it's a nonsense to suggest he would have kept quiet afterwards about his encounter with the carmen while believing that Neil (in addition to Paul and Cross) knew all about it. It only makes sense if the men never mentioned another copper (because there wasn't one), and this allowed Mizen to say nothing about the carmen until Paul mentioned the encounter and he was obliged to come up with a face-saving explanation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Okay, let's go with the notion that Cross really did tell Mizen, when Paul was conveniently out of earshot, that he and Paul had been sent by a copper in Buck's Row to fetch another copper to assist with a woman who was lying there, and that Mizen wasn't told by either man that she could be dead or dying."

WHAT?? You are not going to agree, are you...? This feels uneasy... Wow ...

"Have I got the gospel according to Fishy right so far?"

Yes Maīam!!

"If so, I put it to you that it makes no sense at all for Mizen not to have mentioned the episode, and to have actually denied seeing anybody coming from Buck's Row attracting attention."

Hmmm. Letīs begin by realizing that I am saying that the evidence tells us that this is what happened, and it clearly DOES! Whether it made sense or not is another thing altogether. But letīs see where you are going with this!

"Why? Because if he believed that PC Neil had sent the two carmen to do just that, and to fetch him back to the scene, he would be expecting Neil to include it in his own account:
"I sent two carmen to fetch assistance, and it came in the form of PC Mizen".

That sounds about correct to me. But keep in mind that there is always such a thing as watching each otherīs behinds. If Mizen sensed that Neil was on the threshold of getting an unwanted rub-down, then that may perhaps have affected his doings and sayings.
We are deep into the seas of conjecture here, of course, but much as Iīm convinced that Mizen would have been of the meaning that Neil had been in contact with the carmen, there may perhaps be reason to suspect that he withheld this information at some stage.
Please observe, Caz, that I am not saying that it happened - I am merely cautioning about not looking at all possibilities. Such a thing would be dangerous.
Right, onwards!

"Now we know that Neil saw no carmen..."

We do!

"... and sent for nobody"

Ooops, Caz. He DID send for Mizen, by means of his lamp. But of course, he sent for nobody by use of the carmen, thatīs correct!

"... but that Mizen arrived all the same."

Yep. He did, courtesy of Lechmere.

"No doubt he was relieved to see Neil already there"

Not at all - he would not have been relieved. Why would he? He fully EXPECTED Neil to be in place; Neil or any colleague of his. Relief would not have entered his mind.

"...but it's a nonsense to suggest he would have kept quiet afterwards about his encounter with the carmen while believing that Neil (in addition to Paul and Cross) knew all about it."

WHy? Why would he NOT think that Neil knew all about the carmen? He had met two carmen, and one of them had told him that there was a PC colleague of his in Buckīs Row, awaiting his help.
Now how, Caz, would the carman (Lechmere, incidentally) know this? How did he know that this PC in Buckīs Row wanted him to go in search of a colleague of his?

Did he guess that? No, not very likely.

So how, then?

Precisely: because the Buckīs Row PC had TOLD him to go an fetch help.

This must have been Mizenīs perception of the affair: A PC in Buckīs Row was engaged in an errand including a woman lying in the street over there. He had need for help, for some undisclosed reason, and he had met with the carmen. He had further decided that the carmen were not involved in any criminal activity preceding and/or leading up to the condition of the woman, and so he had found it a good idea to ask them to search out a colleague of his and send him to Buckīs Row.

This establishes - without a doubt, I would submit - that Mizen was of the meaning that Neil knew all he deemed found useful to find out about the carmen, including that they were in the clear in the errand in front of him. Agreed?

Next question: Would Mizen keep quiet about it?

Well, why ask when we KNOW he did? We KNOW that neither he nor Thain admitted to having seen any man who drew attention to himself leaving or entereing Buckīs Row at ther elevant hours.

Question is: When did Mizenīs superiors find this out??

I have worked from the premise that in a case like this, the police would of course ask the PC:s patrolling the in- and outlets of the murder street whether they had seen anybody AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

Then again, the self same police force did not bother to ask Harriet Lilley, living very close to the murder site, a iota until late in september.

This means that we are looking at two possible scenarios:

1. Mizen was asked early on, or
2. Mizen was asked because it had surfaced on Sunday evening that a carman claimed to have done the tour de Buckīs Row in company with a fellow working man, and the police were now anxious to see if this was true.

In EITHER case, Mizen said "No", and that too is something that can be looked at in two ways:

1. He decided to hide the fact, since he felt uneasy about it for some reason (for example for not having taken down their particulars), or
2. He genuinely felt that no man leaving Buckīs Row had "drawn any attention to himself" - the carmen were just people who had good cause to be there, and they were no killers.

These options are all quite possible, Caz. Once again, note what it took for Halse to let two men go in connection with the Eddowes case: They could account for themselves, no more than that. No searching, no quesitons asked - once you accounted for yourself, you were in the clear with Halse.

"It only makes sense if the men never mentioned another copper (because there wasn't one), and this allowed Mizen to say nothing about the carmen until Paul mentioned the encounter and he was obliged to come up with a face-saving explanation."

In which case he would NOT have mentioned that a PC had specifically asked for his help - that should have had him rushing and clearly, it did not. It was very obvious that this fake PC did NOT have the situation in hand - if he DID, then why would he request help? So if Mizen told a lie here, he told the worst possible one.
You are still being tricked by the scam, Caz!!

Also, Caz, keep in mind that Mizen never took the carmenīs particulars, something I believe he was obliged to do - but felt he neednīt SINCE THAT COLLEAGUE OF HIS WOULD ALREADY HAVE SECURED THE INFORMATION. He therefore WAS told about the fake PC, it seems.

All things in line, Caz. The devil is in the details. And context is everything.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Yet again...

The direct evidence from several newspapers that covered the interviews with Helson and Neil on Sunday evening make it quite explicit that at that stage neither Helson nor Neil were aware of the two carmen/witnesses/discoverers/bystanders and the conversation they (or rather one of them) had with Mizen.

At the inquest on the Saturday they most certainly did not know as Neil was heralded as the first discoverer of Polly.

It is clear that Mizen did not tell anyone for some reason. The confusion was undoubtedly facilitated by his being sent immediately for the ambulance and by him being in a different Division to Neil and Helson - so there would have been less opportunity to go over things together. It is not difficult to see how a communication break-down could have occurred. Particularly given the narrow timescales.

It seems that Paul’s story in Lloyds was initially discounted – judging from the oblique references made to it at Neil and Helson’s Sunday night interview. This is not unusual. The police seem to have discounted many of the press speculation stories.

It seems to me that Charles Lechmere coming forward changed things. It led to the police believing the essence of Paul’s story and altered the timeline and the story of how Polly was discovered
This is not an indication of Charles Lechmere’s innocence (I can hear the calls already).
He could not have predicted that Mizen would have kept quiet nor that the police would be slow to believe Paul’s story.

In summary it is a non starter to keep going on about how Mizen shudda told his side of the story.
He cudda... but he didn’t.

Did Charles Lechmere really tell him that he (Mizen) was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row?
That suggests that Mizen lied or that he innocently misheard Charles Lechmere.

I would suggest that Mizen’s actions are consistent with him not thinking there was anything wrong with what he had done – which suggests he did not lie.
Did Mizen mishear? I guess it is possible – if so it is another one of those excuses that have to be strung together to make Charles Lechmere innocent.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I would suggest that Mizen’s actions are consistent with him not thinking there was anything wrong with what he had done"

I second that every inch of the way - and I think that the fact that we hear not a iota of any punishment on account of Mizen (who served til his retirement in 1898) or any bad feelings at all on behalf of his superiors, goes to show that they were of the same opinion. Today, some tend to suspect Mizen of anything from gross misconduct to sheer stupidity, but it seems he was in the clear back then. He may have been considered a tad slow, and it may have helped to sweep the scam under the carpet, but that would be about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

"It only makes sense if the men never mentioned another copper (because there wasn't one), and this allowed Mizen to say nothing about the carmen until Paul mentioned the encounter and he was obliged to come up with a face-saving explanation."

In which case he would NOT have mentioned that a PC had specifically asked for his help - that should have had him rushing and clearly, it did not. It was very obvious that this fake PC did NOT have the situation in hand - if he DID, then why would he request help? So if Mizen told a lie here, he told the worst possible one.

The devil is in the details. And context is everything.

You do make me laugh, Fishy. You ride roughshod over those details and the context and manage to miss the mile-wide flaws in your own arguments.

If Mizen lied once (by failing to say anything about the carmen coming from Buck's Row to attract his attention until Paul's account of it forced his hand), he could lie again when addressing this glaring omission. If he added the bit about a copper at the scene, understandably to take the heat off himself for not going promptly or taking any witness details, he had also to invent a reason why the carmen would have been seeking out another policeman - the only obvious one being that they had been sent specifically to do so. If it was a lie it did him no harm, and was put down to an honest mistake, as technically there was a copper at the scene, and Mizen did go and assist him.

I have no problem with evidence indicating that Mizen told his tale belatedly, as a result of Paul telling his. But in this scenario, only a total twat of a policeman would have tried to deny any such encounter if he believed PC Neil had found the woman and sent two passing carmen for assistance, and he had been the one to respond to Neil's request. What was wrong with Mizen, to think it better not to mention the carmen, or to think he could get away with not mentioning them, if he genuinely believed they had featured prominently in Neil's own story?

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hi Caz

You ride roughshod over those details and the context and manage to miss the mile-wide flaws in your own arguments.
Caz
X

That's Fish's "basic standards for conducting a discussion" (post #350).

[Fisherman]

Caz:

Problem is, Caz, that I think YOU manage to miss even the most obvious of points, whereas you nitpick over items that are of no consequence at all. From that point of view, it is a bit rich to hear you speaking about me missing mile-wide flaws in my arguments.

But never mind, Iīve heard worse from others! And I will gladly look at and answer any point you may raise, albeit they tend to be comprised of wuddaīs and shuddaīs and the occasional cudda. But letīs hear you out!

"If Mizen lied once (by failing to say anything about the carmen coming from Buck's Row to attract his attention until Paul's account of it forced his hand)"

He either DID lie or he thought the carmen had not attracted attention to themselves. It is not something I need to prove; it proves itself if you give the evidence a read-through. But you know that, donīt you?

"...he could lie again when addressing this glaring omission."

Cudda number one, there we go ...

"If he added the bit about a copper at the scene, understandably to take the heat off himself for not going promptly or taking any witness details"

But that would predispose that PC number two had the situation in hand - in which case he had no need for assistance. Surely you can see this? If you need help, you ask for it, and if you donīt need help, you donīt. The purported Buckīs Row PC DID ask for help, and so there was every reason for Mizen to swiftly get his behind down to Buckīs Row. Therefore, he would ADD heat, not take it away, by lying about the copper. Plus, itīs STILL a "cudda" on your behalf. Again.

So whereīs my mile-wide flaw in this? That I donīt agree that "cuddaīs" make for useful evidence - better than the recorded one? Or that I do not agree with you that a PC who calls for help, probably does so since he needs no help...? Good one, Caz!

Excuse me for being thick, but how am I being flawed here? And how come YOU, changing Mizenīs words for a cudda and obliterating the fact that a cell for help is a call for help, is not, but instead commendably wise and well versed in the details (ehrm!). I really canīt see the logic in how YOU attribute the flaws to ME here.

"...he had also to invent a reason why the carmen would have been seeking out another policeman - the only obvious one being that they had been sent specifically to do so."

Why? WHy would he "have to" invent any reason at all? If they told him a woman was lying either dead or drunk in Buckīs Rw, why come up with a very elaborate story about a second PC? Why not adjust the state of the woman to the exact level of interest he wished to portray - and that would have spanned all the way from "the carman said a nice woman had asked for me in Buckīs Row" to "He was sure she had been killed". Mizen could comfortably choose ANY level here if he wanted to produce a lie that made him look good.
The concept of another PC would not enter the normally thinking PC:s mind, and for a reason - it would have been totally and utterly superfluous.

So how am I flawed in my thinking here? Is it not true that he had any choice of performance to put on, without mentioning any PC - if lying was what he wanted to do? And ONCE AGAIN, itīs another cudda from your side. Or wudda. Or whatever. Itīs unsubstatiated at any rate.

"If it was a lie it did him no harm, and was put down to an honest mistake, as technically there was a copper at the scene, and Mizen did go and assist him. "

And how in the whole world would Mizen know this? How would he know it would go down as an honest mistake? And, more to the point, exactly how would he be able to bank on another copper being there?
He could not do that, Caz - thatīs the simple truth.
And what does that do to your suggestion, your wudda, as it were? Yes, thatīs right: It flaws it.
Plus the lie about a PC DID make him harm - he had not rocketed away from Bakerīs Row, instead knocking people up, and he had done so with no knowledge about how dire the need was that other PC had for him.

Therefore your contention that the lie did him no harm is...? Yes...? It is ...? Come on, Caz, say it with me: F-l-a-w-e-d. Flawed. FLAWED!!!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I have gone over the paper reports from Friday/Saturday, and it seems clear that not one of them had anything to say about any question having been put to Thain and Mizen about any men leaving the street. This only surfaces on Monday, leaving me to believe that this question was posed only as a result of Paulīs interview! At any rate, the information as such was not given to the papers before Sunday, and I see no reason at all to withhold it from the press previously.
Make of that what you want. To me, it casts a somewhat different light over Mizen.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

"If it was a lie it did him no harm, and was put down to an honest mistake, as technically there was a copper at the scene, and Mizen did go and assist him. "

And how in the whole world would Mizen know this? How would he know it would go down as an honest mistake? And, more to the point, exactly how would he be able to bank on another copper being there?
He could not do that, Caz - thatīs the simple truth.
And what does that do to your suggestion, your wudda, as it were? Yes, thatīs right: It flaws it.
Plus the lie about a PC DID make him harm - he had not rocketed away from Bakerīs Row, instead knocking people up, and he had done so with no knowledge about how dire the need was that other PC had for him.

Hi Fishy,

Sorry for the delay in responding.

You are staring straight at the biggest hole in the Mizen scam theory and you can’t even see it.

When Mizen finally related what he had been told by carman Cross, he did so with the benefit of hindsight. So of course he knew by then that a copper was at the scene - he didn’t need to ‘bank on’ it. He had found PC Neil there himself, and had been sent for an ambulance. The construction he alone was now putting on his encounter with the two carmen was understandable and fits all too perfectly with his actual experience on arrival at the scene. Things had taken a dramatic turn after that, when he learned that the woman had in fact been brutally murdered and mutilated. Everything would be coloured by this new reality from now on, including his efforts to go back and recall what had happened earlier, when the seriousness of the situation had yet to hit him.

How much attention had Mizen really paid at the time to what was being said by either of the carmen? It was a Godawful hour of the morning and he was busy knocking people up. All too easy after the event to imagine that PC Neil must have sent the two men for him, given who and what he found when he got to Buck’s Row.

The reality of the situation, when he was approached by Paul and Cross, is that there was no indication yet that the woman had been murdered, or was not simply drunk. The reality, according to Paul, Cross, PC Neil and everyone on the planet except Mizen, is that no policeman had seen the carmen in Buck’s Row or sent them for help.

The reality, according to Paul and admitted by Mizen himself, is that Mizen did not respond at once to whatever he was being told, but carried on knocking up for a bit.

This lacklustre reaction fits so much better with Cross simply telling it like it was - a woman lying in Buck’s Row, possibly drunk - than with the invention of a fellow officer in perhaps urgent need of Mizen’s assistance.

The question you should be asking yourself is how in the whole world Lechmere would know, while spinning Mizen this bogus copper yarn, that PC Neil would oblige so graciously, by being at the scene when Mizen arrived and promptly sending him for an ambulance? How could Lechmere have ‘banked on’ the lie being given a superficial veracity in this way?

PC Neil’s presence gives the Mizen scam theory artificial legs. With or without Neil, the lie you claim Lechmere told would have been just as much a lie. But look what happens to the theory without Neil. Lechmere tells his lie, hoping Mizen will drop everything and hot-foot it to Buck’s Row in response to a fellow officer’s request for help. He can then proceed to work, no questions asked, no personal details given. So far so good. There’s just one problem - the elephant in your room. When Mizen gets there, Lechmere can only expect him to find a woman alone, with her throat slashed and innards protruding, and not a copper anywhere to be seen. And if Neil had not been there, that’s exactly what Mizen would have found.

How long would it have taken even the dimmest copper to realise that the carman had pulled a fast one, and raised the alarm? He’d have been hunted high and low and there is no way he would have come forward voluntarily under those circumstances.

So when do you suppose Lechmere heard that Mizen had, by an amazing bit of good fortune, found PC Neil at the scene instead of discovering he had been lied to? Lechmere could only have judged it relatively safe to come forward after that, because he sure as hell would not have done so without that assurance. Even then he’d have been relying on Mizen’s continued ignorance, in the face of the truth as told by Paul and PC Neil.

Do you see the elephant now?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"You are staring straight at the biggest hole in the Mizen scam theory and you can’t even see it."

I feel pretty convinced that I am staring at something quite different, to be honest, Caz. May involve the odd hole, though..!

"How much attention had Mizen really paid at the time to what was being said by either of the carmen? It was a Godawful hour of the morning and he was busy knocking people up. All too easy after the event to imagine that PC Neil must have sent the two men for him, given who and what he found when he got to Buck’s Row."

Sorry, Caz, but this is the purest of conjecture. What you need to understand is that as "Cross" spoke to Mizen, there was no drama. And I think you recognize this? So, the later developments would not shake Mizen in retrospect!
Please, please also keep in mind that Mizen DID NOT TAKE THE NAMES! This - as I have pointed out a zillion times, should be enough to tell us that he had refrained from doing so since he would have been sure that there was no need for it; that OTHER PC would have dealt with them things, leaving Mizen in no need to repeat it all. So, you see, the decision he took not to take the names down, he took BEFORE having it dawn on him that it was a murder affair.

But I have gone over this over and over and over and over again, have I not...?

"The reality of the situation, when he was approached by Paul and Cross, is that there was no indication yet that the woman had been murdered, or was not simply drunk. The reality, according to Paul, Cross, PC Neil and everyone on the planet except Mizen, is that no policeman had seen the carmen in Buck’s Row or sent them for help."

Me oh my - yes again, Caz...?

"The reality, according to Paul and admitted by Mizen himself, is that Mizen did not respond at once to whatever he was being told, but carried on knocking up for a bit. This lacklustre reaction fits so much better with Cross simply telling it like it was - a woman lying in Buck’s Row, possibly drunk - than with the invention of a fellow officer in perhaps urgent need of Mizen’s assistance."

Or not. That depends on what kind of man Mizen was, on HOW Lechmere told him etcetera. Can be either way - does not have to be YOUR way.

"The question you should be asking yourself is how in the whole world Lechmere would know, while spinning Mizen this bogus copper yarn, that PC Neil would oblige so graciously, by being at the scene when Mizen arrived and promptly sending him for an ambulance? How could Lechmere have ‘banked on’ the lie being given a superficial veracity in this way?"

I HAVE asked myself this. I wrote it in my article and I have expanded on it dozens of times, Caz. it is all very simple. Now, follow me: If Lechmere could simply deny having said that there was a PC in place although there WAs, then he could ALSO deny it even if there WAS no PC.

Lechmere does not comment on the presence of a PC as such - he comments on Mizenīs claim that he HAD SAID there was. "I never said that" applies equally well in both cases, and would - in both cases - take him past Mizen anyway.

How on earth can you have MISSED this, Caz...?

"How long would it have taken even the dimmest copper to realise that the carman had pulled a fast one, and raised the alarm? He’d have been hunted high and low and there is no way he would have come forward voluntarily under those circumstances. "

Well, we will never know, will we? But please realize, Caz, that the ruse that you claim that the dumbest copper on earth would see through, was ALSO a ruse that NOBODY saw through for 124 years - and it is still THE EXACT SAME ruse!

You missed it. Sugden missed it. I missed it. Begg, Fido and Evans missed it. Everybody did - up till this year. Surely if a ruse is that cleverly built, it could work under less favourable circumstances too? Besides which, Caz, we know that the coppers of 1888 KNEW that Lechmere had been alone with the body. Therefore they were working with the exact same scenario that you claim would have been very easily seen through: A carman that lies about a PC THAT WAS NOT THERE when he was; that is the exact thing you describe, Caz.
The police thus had all the ingredients at hand, but still could not see the ruse. So I take it they were all, collectively, dumber than the dumbest policeman on earth...?

"So when do you suppose Lechmere heard that Mizen had, by an amazing bit of good fortune, found PC Neil at the scene instead of discovering he had been lied to? Lechmere could only have judged it relatively safe to come forward after that, because he sure as hell would not have done so without that assurance."

For all we know, he may have caught a glimpse of Neil coming into Buckīs Row via Thomas Street as he himself turned the corner up at Bakerīs Row. If so, he would have been pretty damn sure. But these are things we will never know - whereas we DO have Mizenīs description on record. What we DONīT know is whether he would have come forward or not anyway - as I have shown you, even the dumbest may fail to see the efficiency of the ruse.

"Do you see the elephant now?"

Looks more like a duck to me, Caz. Quack!!!

Yep, itīs a duck alright!

Better luck next time!
Fisherman