Evidence of innocence

[Columbo]

What we need not do is to accept that Lechmere left home at 3.20 precisely every day. If he left home with a mindset to kill, he needed to add time to the schedule unless he was willing and ready to be late for work.

Welcome back! I hope your fishing trip was an excellent time! beautiful country.

If you are now saying that Cross intentionally went out on the morning of Nichols murder with the intention of murder and he happened upon her on his way to work, in-between police constables patrol routes with a man 40 yards behind him in the middle of the street, and then calls said man over and does all the things he personally said he did, then we've pretty much stretched credibility as far as it can go. You're now overstretching to make a case against this man, who most likely had nothing at all to do with any murder. Do you seriously believe he saw not one other prostitute or woman on his way to work, at a time when most others were going to work? you honestly believe no one but Cross, Paul, Nichols and 3 police constables were the only ones on the street at that time? I don't buy it, and I doubt anyone else will either. The case against Cross is very minuscule to begin with. This comment just shows that you're trying too hard and your theory just went out the window for me, and I haven't even finished your book yet.

Columbo

[The Baron]

Good post!

He is saying anything just to look as if he has answers to everything, yet he knows his case is drowing like a shattered old boat

He is now trying a new funny escape to the Mizen-trap he put himself in, by suggesting desperately that Lechmere convinced Paul to tell a white lie to any policeman they find on the way!!!







The Baron

[Columbo]

Good post!

He is saying anything just to look as if he has answers to everything, yet he knows his case is drowing like a shattered old boat

He is now trying a new funny escape to the Mizen-trap he put himself in, by suggesting desperately that Lechmere convinced Paul to tell a white lie to any policeman they find on the way!!!







The Baron

Yes the super villain Cross has all the answers and is so quick on his feet that he’s able to convince total strangers to lie for him. It’s gotten beyond ridiculous folks.

Columbo

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm, maybe I don't understand how this is supposed to work (the white lie to Paul bit).

Bare with me for a moment, as I just want to see if I've got the sequence of events correct.

Cross/Lechmere and Paul decide they must get to work, and agree between them to inform the first policeman they see. Cross/Lechmere tells Paul he's going to tell that policeman that he's wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, who is with the woman they were both just examining. Cross/Lechmere justifies this "white lie" to Paul as it will hasten the PC to go to the woman's aid. The two of them find PC Mizen, Cross/Lechmere tells him about the woman in Buck's Row and that PC Mizen is wanted by a fellow PC, which Paul does not contradict because they've agreed that would get the woman help sooner. Paul is not concerned about this lie, presumably because he thinks she may just be drunk, so hardly a big deal if PC Mizen gets there and finds there no PC (which they would naturally presume since there wasn't one) as the two of them will now be well on their way to work, and it's hardly going to be something major.

Ok, I think that's sort of what the idea is. Cross/Lechmere warns Paul of the "white lie" about the PC being there, and he actually is supposed to have told this to PC Mizen. Let's go with that and just accept it as the events that happened, and see where it leads us when we get to the inquest testimony.

Cross/Lechmere testifies at the inquest immediately after PC Mizen. PC Mizen had just testified he was told to go to Buck's Row as he was needed by a PC there, and that when he got to Buck's Row there was in fact a policeman there (so, a stroke of luck for Cross/Lechmere, given he's supposedly told the above "white lie").

In Cross/Lechmere's testimony (found under the inquest testimony links here on Casebook), I just noticed in Cross/Lechmere's testimony the following sentence "... Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. ...", and note, this bit in bold occurs while he and Paul are still with the body. So, presumably Paul has heard this too (I admit, I don't ever recall seeing that part of his testimony before, and it's not included in The Times coverage found in "The Ultimate JtR Companion", which I usually refer to). As there are numerous differences between the newspapers versions, it's hard to know if this is a mangled version of when the two men agree to go find a PC, or a titbit that was overlooked by The Times, or what? Though it's not critical, if it's what he said, it could add to his "white lie" to Paul, as in "by the time we find a PC, that PC we heard will have found her, and he'll need help, so I'll tell the cop that, etc". But if it's something mangled, and not what Cross/Lechmere said, well, the idea is that the "white lie" worked on Paul regardless of whether or not that bit is true - it would just make it easier to convince Paul, but Cross/Lechmere is a psychopathic con man who doesn't need such aids to be convincing in order to save his skin and divert suspicion (remember, that's what he's doing with Paul, and the explanation given as to how he's able to do it so very well).

Great. So far, no problems, it's all hanging together.

And what a stroke of luck that PC Mizen did find PC Neil there, who in fact did need his assistance and sent PC Mizen to fetch the ambulance.

Next up is Cross/Lechmere and he is asked by a juryman if he told PC Mizen he was wanted by a policeman and now he can just say "yes I did." and if he had heard the other PC in the area, he can continue "we heard another PC nearby and knew he would probably need help", and if he hadn't he can say "we thought it would get the woman assistance faster if we told him that", spreading responsibility onto Paul as well (which of course psychopaths do - blame is shared or denied, only credit is claimed), and Paul isn't going to contradict him because that's exactly the white lie they agreed and why, so it would all be true. Not only that, it makes him look both clever and acting for the good of the victim.

But, despite all this, Cross/Lechmere, faced with serendipity, and despite his up until now quick thinking and ability to con, he denies that he told PC Mizen there was a policeman there, and emphasizes he hadn't seen one. And now Paul, who may or may not testify later as far as Cross/Lechmere knows, might be asked the same question and respond differently, complicating things for him when up until now it was all coming up roses for him.

So, our quick thinking pyschopathic con man, suddenly becomes so dull witted that he does not grasp at the low hanging fruit of his clever plan that he used both to get a total stranger to agree to lie to the police and to con PC Mizen so they could move on quickly by just admitting he told PC Mizen about being needed by a policeman. Doing so would allow him to cash in on the fact PC Neil had indeed shown up and made him look both clever and socially responsible, but rather, he throws it all away and testifies he didn't say that even though he has no way of knowing that Paul may appear later and contradict him if asked the same question.

I mean, it's like everything we're supposed to believe about Cross/Lechmere the psychopath seems to have to be set aside in order to explain why he doesn't just agree to what he's supposed have actually done even though admitting to it would make him look good, and more importantly to a psychopath, clever.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Welcome back! I hope your fishing trip was an excellent time! beautiful country.

It was and it is.

If you are now saying that Cross intentionally went out on the morning of Nichols murder with the intention of murder and he happened upon her on his way to work, in-between police constables patrol routes with a man 40 yards behind him in the middle of the street, and then calls said man over and does all the things he personally said he did, then we've pretty much stretched credibility as far as it can go.

But am I saying that? What I am saying is that we cannot take Lechmere´s words for granted when it comes to the timings given because a killer on the prowl for prey could well lie about these things at an inquest. The fact of the matter is that we cannot know if he did this, not in the Nichols case and not in any of the other cases. But if he killed en route to work, then it would be a logical assumption that he added time to his morning trek to allow for hom not to be late for work. So it is a theoretical reasoning I am suggesting.

You're now overstretching to make a case against this man, who most likely had nothing at all to do with any murder.

What people find "most likely" differs, I´m afraid.

Do you seriously believe he saw not one other prostitute or woman on his way to work, at a time when most others were going to work?

Most other were not going to work at 3.30, to begin with. Witnesses spoke of an unusually quiet night with nobody on the streets. I fail to see why he must have met people as long as he stuck to the smaller streets. Then again, I cannot remember having staked my life on it. Nor does it play any role in my theory.

you honestly believe no one but Cross, Paul, Nichols and 3 police constables were the only ones on the street at that time?

Where did you get that from? Where am I stating it? What do you mean with "that time"? If you are saying that Jack the Ripper must also have been there, then yes, he was. But in the guise of Lechmere.

I don't buy it, and I doubt anyone else will either. The case against Cross is very minuscule to begin with. This comment just shows that you're trying too hard and your theory just went out the window for me, and I haven't even finished your book yet.

Columbo

It´s anybodys choice, Columbo. Just remember not to make your decision based on things you claim that I have said but bever did, and it will be just fine.

[Fisherman]

Hmmm, maybe I don't understand how this is supposed to work (the white lie to Paul bit).

Bare with me for a moment, as I just want to see if I've got the sequence of events correct.

Cross/Lechmere and Paul decide they must get to work, and agree between them to inform the first policeman they see. Cross/Lechmere tells Paul he's going to tell that policeman that he's wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row, who is with the woman they were both just examining. Cross/Lechmere justifies this "white lie" to Paul as it will hasten the PC to go to the woman's aid. The two of them find PC Mizen, Cross/Lechmere tells him about the woman in Buck's Row and that PC Mizen is wanted by a fellow PC, which Paul does not contradict because they've agreed that would get the woman help sooner. Paul is not concerned about this lie, presumably because he thinks she may just be drunk, so hardly a big deal if PC Mizen gets there and finds there no PC (which they would naturally presume since there wasn't one) as the two of them will now be well on their way to work, and it's hardly going to be something major.

Ok, I think that's sort of what the idea is. Cross/Lechmere warns Paul of the "white lie" about the PC being there, and he actually is supposed to have told this to PC Mizen. Let's go with that and just accept it as the events that happened, and see where it leads us when we get to the inquest testimony.

Cross/Lechmere testifies at the inquest immediately after PC Mizen. PC Mizen had just testified he was told to go to Buck's Row as he was needed by a PC there, and that when he got to Buck's Row there was in fact a policeman there (so, a stroke of luck for Cross/Lechmere, given he's supposedly told the above "white lie").

In Cross/Lechmere's testimony (found under the inquest testimony links here on Casebook), I just noticed in Cross/Lechmere's testimony the following sentence "... Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. ...", and note, this bit in bold occurs while he and Paul are still with the body. So, presumably Paul has heard this too (I admit, I don't ever recall seeing that part of his testimony before, and it's not included in The Times coverage found in "The Ultimate JtR Companion", which I usually refer to). As there are numerous differences between the newspapers versions, it's hard to know if this is a mangled version of when the two men agree to go find a PC, or a titbit that was overlooked by The Times, or what? Though it's not critical, if it's what he said, it could add to his "white lie" to Paul, as in "by the time we find a PC, that PC we heard will have found her, and he'll need help, so I'll tell the cop that, etc". But if it's something mangled, and not what Cross/Lechmere said, well, the idea is that the "white lie" worked on Paul regardless of whether or not that bit is true - it would just make it easier to convince Paul, but Cross/Lechmere is a psychopathic con man who doesn't need such aids to be convincing in order to save his skin and divert suspicion (remember, that's what he's doing with Paul, and the explanation given as to how he's able to do it so very well).

Great. So far, no problems, it's all hanging together.

And what a stroke of luck that PC Mizen did find PC Neil there, who in fact did need his assistance and sent PC Mizen to fetch the ambulance.

Next up is Cross/Lechmere and he is asked by a juryman if he told PC Mizen he was wanted by a policeman and now he can just say "yes I did." and if he had heard the other PC in the area, he can continue "we heard another PC nearby and knew he would probably need help", and if he hadn't he can say "we thought it would get the woman assistance faster if we told him that", spreading responsibility onto Paul as well (which of course psychopaths do - blame is shared or denied, only credit is claimed), and Paul isn't going to contradict him because that's exactly the white lie they agreed and why, so it would all be true. Not only that, it makes him look both clever and acting for the good of the victim.

But, despite all this, Cross/Lechmere, faced with serendipity, and despite his up until now quick thinking and ability to con, he denies that he told PC Mizen there was a policeman there, and emphasizes he hadn't seen one. And now Paul, who may or may not testify later as far as Cross/Lechmere knows, might be asked the same question and respond differently, complicating things for him when up until now it was all coming up roses for him.

So, our quick thinking pyschopathic con man, suddenly becomes so dull witted that he does not grasp at the low hanging fruit of his clever plan that he used both to get a total stranger to agree to lie to the police and to con PC Mizen so they could move on quickly by just admitting he told PC Mizen about being needed by a policeman. Doing so would allow him to cash in on the fact PC Neil had indeed shown up and made him look both clever and socially responsible, but rather, he throws it all away and testifies he didn't say that even though he has no way of knowing that Paul may appear later and contradict him if asked the same question.

I mean, it's like everything we're supposed to believe about Cross/Lechmere the psychopath seems to have to be set aside in order to explain why he doesn't just agree to what he's supposed have actually done even though admitting to it would make him look good, and more importantly to a psychopath, clever.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff!

The "dull witted" psychopath may simply have counted on how Paul would not admit having been in on a lie, and that would be it. It is all good and well to believe that we are able to understand exactly what a person at an inquest would say and do, but the risk is that we get it wrong. My suggestion about the white lie is but one possibility and not the one I favour - I think that the fact that Mizen says that ONE man came up to him and spoke tells us what happened - Paul was left out of the exchange, simple as. But IF people persist in sayiong that Paul MUST have been part of the exchange (and me oh my, do they!), THEN that would not necessarily mean that he would speak about it at the inquest if he was part of a white lie.
One thing that can be added to the suggestion is that it seems that Paul was somewhat anti-police, and so he may have been reluctant to help them in the first place. Furthermore, if the two agreed on a white lie, they may also have agreed not to own up to it if they were hauled in by the police.

The part about "just then they heard another policeman" as they were still by Nichols´ side has intrigued me for years. It is ONLY in the DT, though. Not one other paper has it, and so it must be regarded as a misunderstanding by the reporter. The same reporter also had Paul being the part who would not help prop Nichols up, so we know that he was not the most reliable of sources.

[Fisherman]

As I said, Fiver, our conversation is over. You should count yourself lucky - I would probably never be able to understand what you say anyway.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff!

The "dull witted" psychopath may simply have counted on how Paul would not admit having been in on a lie, and that would be it. It is all good and well to believe that we are able to understand exactly what a person at an inquest would say and do, but the risk is that we get it wrong. My suggestion about the white lie is but one possibility and not the one I favour - I think that the fact that Mizen says that ONE man came up to him and spoke tells us what happened - Paul was left out of the exchange, simple as. But IF people persist in sayiong that Paul MUST have been part of the exchange (and me oh my, do they!), THEN that would not necessarily mean that he would speak about it at the inquest if he was part of a white lie.
One thing that can be added to the suggestion is that it seems that Paul was somewhat anti-police, and so he may have been reluctant to help them in the first place. Furthermore, if the two agreed on a white lie, they may also have agreed not to own up to it if they were hauled in by the police.

The part about "just then they heard another policeman" as they were still by Nichols´ side has intrigued me for years. It is ONLY in the DT, though. Not one other paper has it, and so it must be regarded as a misunderstanding by the reporter. The same reporter also had Paul being the part who would not help prop Nichols up, so we know that he was not the most reliable of sources.

Hi Fisherman,

Hope you had a great trip and got a chance to cast a few flies while in Iceland.

Anyway, Paul testifies that he spoke to Mizen, so it is recorded that he was part of the exchanges, though he may have spoke very little which wouldn't make PC Mizen's testimony that Cross/Lechmere was the primary person he spoke to.

And, the whole theory of Cross/Lechmere is based upon presuming we understand what he does, presuming he's psychopathic. But once we make that presumption, he then fails to be consistent with it. It's not rocket science to recognize your cunning plan worked perfectly, and it's dull witted to then deny it and fail to grasp the glory.

And if he didn't tell the white lie, then PC Mizen is the one who got it wrong (which makes a lot of sense as he could just misrember being told he was needed in Buck's Row, and having found a PC Neil there who directs him for the ambulance, remembers it as being told he was need by a policeman - normal human memory error).

Yah, that "heard another policeman" is weird, and I suspect it's some sort of error too, which I sort of tried to cover, but wanted to show that the main point I was making doesn't hinge on my guess and works either way.

I think, though, the "white lie" side of things really starts to self contradict, and given it's not your preferred one, I would suggest viewing that line of hypothesizing as being a non-starter.

- Jeff

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Hope you had a great trip and got a chance to cast a few flies while in Iceland.

My son is a flyfishing guide over there, so as you may see ...

Anyway, Paul testifies that he spoke to Mizen, so it is recorded that he was part of the exchanges, though he may have spoke very little which wouldn't make PC Mizen's testimony that Cross/Lechmere was the primary person he spoke to.

Not at the inquest, he didn´t. He never said "I spoke to..." or "I told him..." What is said is that "We told him..." and as you may be aware, we somethines say "We beat them" after a football game where we sat in the audience. It is not on record that Paul spoke to Mizen.

And, the whole theory of Cross/Lechmere is based upon presuming we understand what he does, presuming he's psychopathic. But once we make that presumption, he then fails to be consistent with it. It's not rocket science to recognize your cunning plan worked perfectly, and it's dull witted to then deny it and fail to grasp the glory.

I gave my answer in my former post. There is nothing dull witted with a plan that works like clockwork, is there? It´s just you wanting to shape how a psychopathic killer must have thought.

And if he didn't tell the white lie, then PC Mizen is the one who got it wrong (which makes a lot of sense as he could just misrember being told he was needed in Buck's Row, and having found a PC Neil there who directs him for the ambulance, remembers it as being told he was need by a policeman - normal human memory error).

No, it never makes more sense to speculate that somebody got it wrong or misheard than it does to accept that what a person says he was told is also what he acrtually WAS told.

Yah, that "heard another policeman" is weird, and I suspect it's some sort of error too, which I sort of tried to cover, but wanted to show that the main point I was making doesn't hinge on my guess and works either way.

I must be regarded as an error, yes.

I think, though, the "white lie" side of things really starts to self contradict, and given it's not your preferred one, I would suggest viewing that line of hypothesizing as being a non-starter.

- Jeff

Not at all. It is and remains a possibility. We cannot dub things non-starters just because we dislike them. There has to be sound factual grounds behind such a thing.

[GBinOz]

I think that the fact that Mizen says that ONE man came up to him and spoke tells us what happened - Paul was left out of the exchange, simple as.

I think that is the obvious conclusion. Paul was very vociferious in his interview with Lloyds, implying that he left Lechmere with the body and had a "one man show" with Mizen. Come the inquest it's an entirely different matter. I've read five accounts of his sworn testimony. In three he simply talks about finding a policeman. The Evening Standard and The Morning Advertiser quote Paul as saying "I sent the other man for a policeman". Lechmere discovered the body and the natural thing to do would be for Paul to stand back and let Lechmere relate the circumstances, as testified by Mizen. I tend to agree with Jeff in thinking that there is no need for the "white lie" alternative - the testimony is enough.

Christer, while you were in Iceland I did raise a question on your request for evidence of innocence in my post #328 for when you returned. You may have missed it while sheltering from the barrage of unwarranted attacks upon your person. I admire your perserverence.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Hi Fisherman,

Hope you had a great trip and got a chance to cast a few flies while in Iceland.

My son is a flyfishing guide over there, so as you may see ...

Nice. Must have been a great time.

Anyway, Paul testifies that he spoke to Mizen, so it is recorded that he was part of the exchanges, though he may have spoke very little which wouldn't make PC Mizen's testimony that Cross/Lechmere was the primary person he spoke to.

Not at the inquest, he didn´t. He never said "I spoke to..." or "I told him..." What is said is that "We told him..." and as you may be aware, we somethines say "We beat them" after a football game where we sat in the audience. It is not on record that Paul spoke to Mizen.

Yes, in The Times it's not given as transcript quotes, and we get a paraphrasing by the reporter what he said to the coroner "...Witness and the other man [Lechmere/Cross] walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. ...", which is admittedly ambiguous as to who is speaking.

And, re-checking, I see it's not Paul who testifies that he spoke to Mizen, but Cross/Lechmere testifies that Paul stated he believed her to be dead (in The Times). So, while The Times paraphrase is consistent with Paul indicating he spoke, which would be consistent with Cross/Lechmere's testimony that Paul spoke, you could argue that PC Mizen indicates Paul didn't speak, Cross/Lechmere is lying, and Paul is using the "royal we" and never corrects Cross/Lechmere's statement that he had spoken.

And, the whole theory of Cross/Lechmere is based upon presuming we understand what he does, presuming he's psychopathic. But once we make that presumption, he then fails to be consistent with it. It's not rocket science to recognize your cunning plan worked perfectly, and it's dull witted to then deny it and fail to grasp the glory.

I gave my answer in my former post. There is nothing dull witted with a plan that works like clockwork, is there? It´s just you wanting to shape how a psychopathic killer must have thought.

Yes, I saw your answer. I would, however, disagree that exposing the lie you told to cover up things when it's clearly not required is hardly a plan working like clockwork. Rather, it's a bungling unforced error. Also, I'm not shaping how he thinks, I'm simply harnessing the description of how he's supposed to think that you've put forth in your theory. You have many times stated that Cross/Lechmere is a very cunning, quick thinking, psychopath who was bluffing his way out after having been almost caught. His lack of emotional response to what others would find stressful is what allows him to come up with the clever cons and scam his way out. I'm just holding him to that description, and his unforced error doesn't follow. Basically, I'm working with the shape you've given me.

And if he didn't tell the white lie, then PC Mizen is the one who got it wrong (which makes a lot of sense as he could just misrember being told he was needed in Buck's Row, and having found a PC Neil there who directs him for the ambulance, remembers it as being told he was need by a policeman - normal human memory error).

No, it never makes more sense to speculate that somebody got it wrong or misheard than it does to accept that what a person says he was told is also what he acrtually WAS told.

But you can't have it both ways. You have to speculate that Cross/Lechmere gets it wrong, in fact, not just gets it wrong in a normal way, but deliberately lies, and then exposes that lie as well. All I suggest is a typical memory error of what was actually said, "that he was wanted in Buck's Row", and finding that there was a police officer there, making the natural assumption what was meant was "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row". Given the situation, it's a very normal misunderstanding of intention, and doesn't require any complicated speculations of people deliberately lying. Both of us have to suggest things about what the intentions of the people involved are, that's the nature of theorizing. It's up to others to evaluate which, if either, speculation is more acceptable given the evidence we have to work with.

Yah, that "heard another policeman" is weird, and I suspect it's some sort of error too, which I sort of tried to cover, but wanted to show that the main point I was making doesn't hinge on my guess and works either way.

I must be regarded as an error, yes.

Yah, it makes no sense, as if they heard a PC coming, they would just alert that one rather than wonder off hoping to find another.

I think, though, the "white lie" side of things really starts to self contradict, and given it's not your preferred one, I would suggest viewing that line of hypothesizing as being a non-starter.

- Jeff

Not at all. It is and remains a possibility. We cannot dub things non-starters just because we dislike them. There has to be sound factual grounds behind such a thing.

True, we can't bin something just because we don't like it, but that's not what I'm suggesting as the motivation for viewing it as a non-starter. As I've pointed out, it ends up contradicting itself, and that's pretty much a death sentence for a theory since lack of internal consistency is self falsification. While you don't like my arguments, that's no reason to bin them, and I'm not making any more use of speculation than the "white lie" theory I'm evaluating - I'm just using it in different parts, but that's allowed, I'm presenting a counter-argument to the "white lie" train of thought.

I'm not suggesting it shoots your whole theory down, I'm just saying that particular line of presentation looks to me to get you into logical trouble. I thought you had said earlier it wasn't your favorite idea anyway? But maybe I'm misremembering that, and it was either someone else or you were referring to something else. I can't seem to find the post again, but if my memory serves then it would mean you have other ideas that you think work better. I'm just suggesting you're right on that, they would have to work better because this one pretty much qualifies as "not working" without throwing in a few "...but we can't assume he would think that way ..." to rebut a critique of theory that is based upon presuming how he thinks in the first place. If I can't, you can't, and if you can't, there's no theory.

Anyway, just giving you and everyone else something to think about. And again, if I've recalled correctly and you've got other more preferred explanations, I think you would be better off focusing your energies there. It's up to you if you think you need to keep every option you've thought of on the table. I don't see any need for that myself as it feels like clutter to me. To each their own.

Oh, and you know, the "pub" forum would be a good place for any fishing photos you may wish to share.

- Jeff

[FrankO]

I hope you enjoyed Iceland and that it gave you somewhat more than just a cool head, Christer! I could do with a cool head right now, as it’s been around 30° C for weeks here in Tuscany! If Iceland is somewhat like Spitsbergen, then I’m sure you had a good time, landscape and nature wise!

I think Mizen was told that there was a drunk woman on her back in Bucks Row and that another PC was in place, plus that this PC had told the carmen to send over any fellow PC they may find on their way.

After that, Mizen would have no reason to ask any questions at all.

To what - if any - degree Mizen wondered about matters remains unknown to us. He may simply have thought that he must have misheard Lechmere for all we know. And, once again, it took 125 years for anybody to see the potential explosive power in the Mizen scam. And those 125 years involve millions of people missing out on it, so it is not as if can say that any idiot would have made the connection, Frank.

Of course, one can also not wonder and continue to see it like that, Christer. Notable, though, that the evidence – “what we have (on record) is what we go by” - amounts to nothing more than Mizen stating that Cross told him that he was wanted in Buck’s Row, that a policeman wanted him and that there was a woman lying there, while another source stated that, according to Mizen, Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about murder or suicide.

Nothing about a ‘drunk woman’, while – if true – it would have been in Mizen’s favour to tell the inquest so. After all, he clearly didn’t give the carmen the distinct impression that he was going to respond to their call, so letting the inquest know that he was told the woman was only drunk would’ve helped. Obviously, it would have been much less favourable for Mizen to admit that he was told the woman might also have been dead. Remarkable, in this regard, that Mizen only mentioned ‘murder’ and ‘suicide’. I, for one, do wonder why that was. Could that have been because Cross – just like he’d stated – did tell Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row was either dead or drunk? Because, wouldn’t Mizen otherwise have said that Cross didn’t say anything about death?

I know what sort of answer you’re going to give, Christer, but I’ll continue to see enough uncertainties in Mizen’s evidence to support the notion that Mizen simply wasn’t the best copper he could have been on the night in question.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

All I suggest is a typical memory error of what was actually said, "that he was wanted in Buck's Row", and finding that there was a police officer there, making the natural assumption what was meant was "he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row". Given the situation, it's a very normal misunderstanding of intention, and doesn't require any complicated speculations of people deliberately lying. Both of us have to suggest things about what the intentions of the people involved are, that's the nature of theorizing. It's up to others to evaluate which, if either, speculation is more acceptable given the evidence we have to work with.

Agreed all around, Jeff.

[GBinOz]

I hope you enjoyed Iceland and that it gave you somewhat more than just a cool head, Christer! I could do with a cool head right now, as it’s been around 30° C for weeks here in Tuscany!

Hi Frank,

Off subject I know but, in Australia 30° C is just a nice summer day. We don't acknowledge hot until it is 40° C, with the odd day out to 45° C.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Christer,

Just a quick question. In your investigations of Lechemere, have you come across any suggestion that he may have been a Free Mason?

Cheers, George