All roads lead to Lechmere.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Steve,

Nice coverage of the possibilities, and I agree with your view of the probabilities. I tend to think the misunderstanding is the most likely. It's technically a memory error because the most probable reason for him to misconstrue the carmenthat's statements occurs once he gets to Buck's Row and finds PC Neil there in need of assistance. As such, at the time Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to him he probably doesn't think they mean he's needed by a policemen, only that there's a woman (probably drunk - even if they said she might be dead he's likely to think they're mistaken given they themselves don't come across as having been convinced she was). Once he gets there, though, he's likely to have re-evaluated what he was told, and therefore is overwriting the original memory of what he thought they meant with a new interpretation, which later gets described as what he remembers them initially telling him.

Anyway, if that is what happened, and I personally see that as very plausible, then nobody has actually lied because nobody is telling a deliberate falsehood. Rather, PC Mizen appears to have misunderstood what the carmen originally were saying, and Cross/Lechmere's disagreement with PC Mizen reflects that it was a misunderstanding.

Too often we can be quick to point the finger and accuse someone of lying, but when statements conflict like this I think the first step is to determine if the conflict may simply represent a simple misunderstanding and/or mistake. Those types of explanations, however, tend to be boring and don't allow for building of further arguments towards one conclusion or another, and where's the fun in that?

- Jeff

I think you're saying more or less what I said here and on other forums, namely that Mizen's memory played a trick on him and he reinterpreted Lechmere's 'wanted' to mean 'wanted by a policeman' after coming across a policeman with the body.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, see my reply to PI 1

Hi Steve,

Nice coverage of the possibilities, and I agree with your view of the probabilities. I tend to think the misunderstanding is the most likely. It's technically a memory error because the most probable reason for him to misconstrue the carmen's statements occurs once he gets to Buck's Row and finds PC Neil there in need of assistance. As such, at the time Cross/Lechmere and Paul are talking to him he probably doesn't think they mean he's needed by a policemen, only that there's a woman (probably drunk - even if they said she might be dead he's likely to think they're mistaken given they themselves don't come across as having been convinced she was). Once he gets there, though, he's likely to have re-evaluated what he was told, and therefore is overwriting the original memory of what he thought they meant with a new interpretation, which later gets described as what he remembers them initially telling him.

Anyway, if that is what happened, and I personally see that as very plausible, then nobody has actually lied because nobody is telling a deliberate falsehood. Rather, PC Mizen appears to have misunderstood what the carmen originally were saying, and Cross/Lechmere's disagreement with PC Mizen reflects that it was a misunderstanding.

Too often we can be quick to point the finger and accuse someone of lying, but when statements conflict like this I think the first step is to determine if the conflict may simply represent a simple misunderstanding and/or mistake. Those types of explanations, however, tend to be boring and don't allow for building of further arguments towards one conclusion or another, and where's the fun in that?

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I've suggested a simple memory type error before. Basically, when the carmen are saying he is need in Buck's Row, meaning there's a situation that needs dealing with, and he arrives to find PC Neil already there, who in turn needs him to go get the ambulance, it would be very easy for him to misconstrue the carmen as saying he was needed by PC Neil. So one could call that a memory error, or a miscommunication perhaps. In the end, though, the error on that point appears to be PC Mizen's, but I'm not convinced it should be viewed as him lying (though of course he could be) given I think it's probably a mistake on his part as to what Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant. Being told his presence was required in Buck's Row and finding a constable there already could easily result in him presuming the carmen knew of PC Neil's presence, resulting in his reinterpretation for the information he had just been told, which technically could be described as altering his memory.

- Jeff

Jeff, see my reply to PI 1

[Elamarna]

Thanks for your reply.

I can't think of any other explanation and wonder which ones you have thought of.

I think I list 7 variations in my book on Bucks Row.

That includes that Mizen told the truth, and Lechmere lied because HE was guilty.

That Lechmere lied because he was running late, and wanted to get to work

Neither of which I consider likely, but other do.

I look at the possibility that Mizen told a white lie, to cover what HE may have perceived as his less than urgent reply.

The least controversial scenero is that there was a genuine misunderstanding . An assumption on Mizen's part when he found Neil on site

I give several different takes on how this may have occurred.

Steve

[JeffHamm]

Hi PI

There are many possible scenero's to why the Evidence from Mizen is different from.the carmen, but it's the first time I have heard his memory played tricks on him, I must say.

He would have written up a report at the end of his duty, and he's giving evidence just over 72 hours later.

I agree his evidence was not corroborated, and the police report of 19th September does not even mention Mizen's version it says
"and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55 .H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen"

No mention of another officer.

Before you ask, I certain do not think he was told another officer wanted him.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I've suggested a simple memory type error before. Basically, when the carmen are saying he is need in Buck's Row, meaning there's a situation that needs dealing with, and he arrives to find PC Neil already there, who in turn needs him to go get the ambulance, it would be very easy for him to misconstrue the carmen as saying he was needed by PC Neil. So one could call that a memory error, or a miscommunication perhaps. In the end, though, the error on that point appears to be PC Mizen's, but I'm not convinced it should be viewed as him lying (though of course he could be) given I think it's probably a mistake on his part as to what Cross/Lechmere and Paul meant. Being told his presence was required in Buck's Row and finding a constable there already could easily result in him presuming the carmen knew of PC Neil's presence, resulting in his reinterpretation for the information he had just been told, which technically could be described as altering his memory.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi PI

There are many possible scenero's to why the Evidence from Mizen is different from.the carmen, but it's the first time I have heard his memory played tricks on him, I must say.

He would have written up a report at the end of his duty, and he's giving evidence just over 72 hours later.

I agree his evidence was not corroborated, and the police report of 19th September does not even mention Mizen's version it says
"and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55 .H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen"

No mention of another officer.

Before you ask, I certain do not think he was told another officer wanted him.

Steve

Thanks for your reply.

I can't think of any other explanation and wonder which ones you have thought of.

[Elamarna]

The Mizen Scam being that Lechmere told Mizen that a policeman was already with the body, in order to get past Mizen?

Wouldn't it have been easier for Lechmere not to find a policeman at all, in which case there would be no need to get past one by making something up?

The most likely explanation is Mizen's memory played tricks on him, and he attributed to Lechmere knowledge of the policeman whom Mizen later found with the body being with the body.

Mizen's testimony on that point was not corroborated.

Hi PI

There are many possible scenero's to why the Evidence from Mizen is different from.the carmen, but it's the first time I have heard his memory played tricks on him, I must say.

He would have written up a report at the end of his duty, and he's giving evidence just over 72 hours later.

I agree his evidence was not corroborated, and the police report of 19th September does not even mention Mizen's version it says
"and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55 .H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen"

No mention of another officer.

Before you ask, I certain do not think he was told another officer wanted him.

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

How much blood would we be looking at here, potentially? Many of Nichols' wounds were superficial, and would there be much arterial splatter if the throat was cut whilst the victim was laid out? Not to mention the dim lighting conditions may have concealed any blood residue on his clothing.

Although I agree in principle, it sounds suicidal for Lechmere to engage with a witness and a policeman whilst carrying the murder weapon and potential bloodstains. I suppose the pro-Lechmere argument would be that was the motive for the "Mizen Scam".

The Mizen Scam being that Lechmere told Mizen that a policeman was already with the body, in order to get past Mizen?

Wouldn't it have been easier for Lechmere not to find a policeman at all, in which case there would be no need to get past one by making something up?

The most likely explanation is Mizen's memory played tricks on him, and he attributed to Lechmere knowledge of the policeman whom Mizen later found with the body being with the body.

Mizen's testimony on that point was not corroborated.

[Elamarna]

but they werent looking for blood, certainly not checking him, which was PIs original point

Even if they had checked him, I am far from convinced that he would actually have any noticible blood on him, maybe his hands of cuffs, but even that's not certain.

My point being that a lack of obvious blood, does not rule him out.

Steve

[Elamarna]

but they werent looking for blood, certainly not checking him, which was PIs original point

Agreed, but I think.its safe to assume nothing noticesble

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

oh really? i didnt know he was checked for blood or knife. could you please provide the source for this?

The fact that he had no blood on him can be deduced from the fact that within 1/4 of an hour of the murder having taken place, Charles Allen Lechmere was talking to a policeman and he had not had any chance in the meantime to clean any blood off himself.

Had he been carrying a 6 to 8 inch (or longer) knife, with Nichols' blood on it, he would not have approached a policeman.

I don't recall the murderer approaching a policeman, with his 6 to 8 inch knife on his person, following the murders in Hanbury St, Berner St, Mitre Square, or Miller's Court.

[Harry D]

Paul did more than just stood by Lechmere, they walked together for about 15 minutes. There's also Lechmere's bosses and coworkers, who would have seen him arrive. And then every pick up and delivery over a shift that could be 14 to 18 hours. After all, he worked for a general delivery service, not a slaughterhouse, there would be no reasonable explanation for blood on his hands or clothing.

How much blood would we be looking at here, potentially? Many of Nichols' wounds were superficial, and would there be much arterial splatter if the throat was cut whilst the victim was laid out? Not to mention the dim lighting conditions may have concealed any blood residue on his clothing.

Although I agree in principle, it sounds suicidal for Lechmere to engage with a witness and a policeman whilst carrying the murder weapon and potential bloodstains. I suppose the pro-Lechmere argument would be that was the motive for the "Mizen Scam".

[Abby Normal]

He certainly was not checked for a knife Abby, that is correct.
However, both Mizen and Paul stood next to him and apparently noticed no blood.
So I suggest it's a reasonable assumption that he had no blood on his clothing or hands.

Steve

but they werent looking for blood, certainly not checking him, which was PIs original point

[Elamarna]

Banging your head against a brick wall for years more like Steve. Like the rest of the sensible posters.

Yes, well I gave up trying to convince people that what for some amounts to a belief system may not be as they would want it to be.

Took a break from the site, while writing the book, but am back around, wiser, older with no desire to argue with those who cannot even consider they may be wrong.

Steve

[John Wheat]

You don't need to convince me Fiver, I have been arguing this for years.

Banging your head against a brick wall for years more like Steve. Like the rest of the sensible posters.