The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fiver]

Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researchers may hope for. To me it’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. Thus, he continued “calling people up”. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him, to some degree. Stating that he was not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat understandable, as well. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and reputation.

PC Mizen was either lying or he badly misunderstood what the two carmen told him. PC Neil's testimony is that he saw PC Mizen in Bakers Row, not Bucks Row, which could mean that Mizen was just continuing his patrol, ignoring what the carman told him.

There's also the 3 September 1888 Daily News - "It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the Street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete."

If this account is correct, it appears that PC Neil asked PC Mizen if Mizen had seen anyone and that PC Mizen said no instead of mentioning Lechmere and Paul.

[Elamarna]

After a long absence from these boards, it appears what is old is new again. I knew I'd posted something years ago related to this argument. I was able to locate it and I post it here (edited).

Much of the “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of the “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen who orchestrated it. Further, I think it’s clear that he did so for very simply, understandable reasons.

What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Keep in mind, both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying."

Here we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested by Fisherman that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively, clearly implying that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

Here, again, we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with the two men in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31 as Mizen.

Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researchers may hope for. To me it’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. Thus, he continued “calling people up”. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him, to some degree. Stating that he was not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat understandable, as well. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and reputation.

Hi Patrick, long time.

In the latest update of Inside Bucks Row, I have several possible different sceneros for the Mizen Scam.


Steve

[Mark J D]

Much of the “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen

'Much'?

No.

HTH.

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

After a long absence from these boards, it appears what is old is new again. I knew I'd posted something years ago related to this argument. I was able to locate it and I post it here (edited).

Much of the “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of the “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen who orchestrated it. Further, I think it’s clear that he did so for very simply, understandable reasons.

What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Keep in mind, both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying."

Here we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested by Fisherman that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively, clearly implying that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

Here, again, we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with the two men in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31 as Mizen.

Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researchers may hope for. To me it’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. Thus, he continued “calling people up”. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him, to some degree. Stating that he was not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat understandable, as well. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and reputation.

Hi Patrick,

Welcome back.

The ‘frame Lechmere’ campaign continues.

[Abby Normal]

After a long absence from these boards, it appears what is old is new again. I knew I'd posted something years ago related to this argument. I was able to locate it and I post it here (edited).

Much of the “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of the “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen who orchestrated it. Further, I think it’s clear that he did so for very simply, understandable reasons.

What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul states, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Keep in mind, both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying."

Here we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested by Fisherman that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

“I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see.”

Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively, clearly implying that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

Here, again, we have three statements. Two are consistent: Paul's and Lechmere's. One is not: Mizen's.

The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with the two men in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31 as Mizen.

Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researchers may hope for. To me it’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. Thus, he continued “calling people up”. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him, to some degree. Stating that he was not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat understandable, as well. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and reputation.

its anything than obvious that mizen was untruthful. the most obvious is there was a misunderstanding in what was said. another possible explanation is that lechmere lied.

[Fiver]

its anything than obvious that mizen was untruthful. the most obvious is there was a misunderstanding in what was said. another possible explanation is that lechmere lied.

Lechmere and Paul's accounts support each other. If Lechmere was lying, then so was Robert Paul. And there's no credible reason for that/

[Abby Normal]

Lechmere and Paul's accounts support each other. If Lechmere was lying, then so was Robert Paul. And there's no credible reason for that/

yeah, ive always felt that the most reasonable explanation by far was there was a misunderstanding. lech probably said something like your needed in bucks row, and when mizen got there and neil was already there he misremembered that lech said another pc needs you in bucks row.simple explanation and an honest mistake.

[Patrick S]

its anything than obvious that mizen was untruthful. the most obvious is there was a misunderstanding in what was said. another possible explanation is that lechmere lied.

Fair point. Obvious is the wrong word. But, in my defense, I wrote it six or seven years ago.

More accurate would be to say, "I believe" that Mizen was untruthful, for (what seem to me) obvious and understandable reasons.

As you say, a misunderstanding is quite possible, as well. In my view, however, I think the chronology of events, testimony, new paper accounts, etc, suggest that Mizen was untruthful.

It's also possible that Cross lied. After all, nearly anything is possible. Although, as Paul and Cross agree with respect to Mizen's reaction and actions... This, then, takes us into another element of Fisherman's theory: Cross makes Paul is unwitting dupe and puppet. And since I am just dipping my toes back in, I'll avoid that for now.

[JeffHamm]

yeah, ive always felt that the most reasonable explanation by far was there was a misunderstanding. lech probably said something like your needed in bucks row, and when mizen got there and neil was already there he misremembered that lech said another pc needs you in bucks row.simple explanation and an honest mistake.

Hi Abby,

While not the only possible explanation, I have always considered the above "misunderstanding" line of argument to be the most plausible.

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

its anything than obvious that mizen was untruthful. the most obvious is there was a misunderstanding in what was said. another possible explanation is that lechmere lied.

I think it far less likely that it was Cross/Lechmere who lied and if anyone misled proceedings, whether innocently or deliberatly it was Mizen.

On the first day proper of the inquest, who did the Police believe had found the body?
PC Neil.
PC Neil knew nothing about two carmen who may have mistakenly have been thought to have encunterede Neil, who would by their very nature be prime suspects in the case....IF the Police knew that two witnesses who were alone with the body before a copper ever showed up even existed.

If Mizen HAD mentioned them to detectives there would have been a statement made that two men who had liled about a policeman in Bucks Row were being eagerly sought for questioning.

Here's how that would have gone.(I've taken liberties with the dialogue)

Mizen: I was told by two men that I was needed by a Policeman in Bucks Row
Detectitive: What were their names. We'll need to talk to them.
Mizen: I didn't take them down as I assumed they would have given their details to the other officer.
Detective: PC Neil, did you take down the names of the two carmen whom you sent for help?
Neil: Sorry? Who? I found the body myself and the next person i saw was the constable I sent for Dr Llewellyn, and after that the constable I sent to fetch the ambulance... I neither saw nor sent any carmen.
Detrective Mizen!!! Care to explain???
At which point Mizen would have told whatever story he considered most appropriate. But none of this happpened...had Mizen even MENTIONED their existence to detectives, the Police WOULD have known about the existence of two anonymous witnesses, and would be actively seeking them on Friday night and throughout Saturday!

So it is clear that Mizen made NO mention of the two men on the night of the event. Pretty striking ommission.
But on Sunday, Robert Paul's stories appear in Llyods calling the police out on their statement of who found the body.

At this point the police must have felt incredibly stupid. How had they missed the existence of two eye witnesses, who had been with the body prior to Neil finding it...
Seriously...HOW?
If there is a more sensible answer than "Mizen didn't say anything..". I'd like to hear it.

There is NO way that the Police knew about Paul and Cross on Saturday, and still let Neil take the stand saying HE had found the body with no mention of two nameless car men.. I imagine that at some point after Cross took the stand on Monday, the Inspectors were called into chambers by Wynne Baxter and each chewed a new arsehole for getting this so badly wrong.

So, why would Mizen not want to draw attention to those two witnesses until they had been outed in the press?
Maybe the answer to that is found in Paul's condemnation of Mizens actions after he had been told of a potential body in Bucks Row. From what they had told him she MIGHT still be alive.
That's one callous call to go on "knocking up" while a woman may lie dying in the street, two minutes walk away.
So when Mizen DOES set off he is seen by Neil and sent for help.
WHY wouldn't he say anything afterward?

"He probably thought Neil had mentioned them" is the sort of excuse a slightly dim witted civilian might be able offer as an excuse. Not a Copper.

The "A Policeman wants you in Bucks Row" is Class One Ass Covering by Mizen, and a certain section of researchers has chosen to leverage an obvious "Need to dig myself out of this **** hole I jumped into" and use it as a frame for Charles Cross being a liar, because no LEGITIMATE evidence exists to support him as a suspect above tens of thousands of other people who "Knew the area" or walked from one side of Whitechapel to the other every day.

I believe he carried on knocking up, as Paul claimed, and probably hurried BACK to that job as soon as he could after fetching the ambulance, (no knock - no coin...) and the combination of Paul's newspaper story, and Cross scoming forward so quickly to the inquiry forced him to come up with a story to cover his own ass.

[Dickere]

Hi Patrick,

Welcome back.

The ‘frame Lechmere’ campaign continues.

Mizen was either mistaken, forgetful, or lying.

The woman was laying, not lying.

[Fisherman]

So here we are, once again discussing whether or not Lechmere or Mizen was the likeliest one to be telling porkies. And we are on Facebook, so there is a large club of people who do not like the suggestion of Lechmere being the culprit in any way - but it must nevertheless be sated that there is a very different take to be had, for those who accept that the carman could well have been guilty. In order to show how the reasoning goes, A P Tomlinson post is as good an example of the one-eyed Innocent! brigade as one could find. In red, I will add what the other eye would have caught, if kept open. We will sometimes agree, sometimes disagree, but there are also errors in the post that need too be pointed out.

I think it far less likely that it was Cross/Lechmere who lied and if anyone misled proceedings, whether innocently or deliberatly it was Mizen.

So here we disagree. I think that the logical solution, based on the evidence, is that Lechmere was the liar and misleader.

On the first day proper of the inquest, who did the Police believe had found the body?
PC Neil.
PC Neil knew nothing about two carmen who may have mistakenly have been thought to have encunterede Neil, who would by their very nature be prime suspects in the case....IF the Police knew that two witnesses who were alone with the body before a copper ever showed up even existed.

Agreed. The police had heard of, but discarded, the two men who found Nichols before Neil arrived. And YES - they (or at least one of them, the one to first arrive and spend time alone with the victim) SHOULD have been made a prime suspect, going by todays standards. Back then, it would have been much less self-evident on account of how the police were searching for somebody who answered the description from the Star: Half man, half beast. Keep in mind the words of Queen Victoria: Whoever it was, it was not an Englishman. Racism and prejudice was par for the course, and that makes for a very different ball park. But technically, of course Lechmere should have been the prime suspect!

If Mizen HAD mentioned them to detectives there would have been a statement made that two men who had liled about a policeman in Bucks Row were being eagerly sought for questioning.

Not two men, ONE man. Mizen was very clear on how he was approached by ONE man, and he identified that man as Charles Lechmere at the second day of the inquest.

Here's how that would have gone.(I've taken liberties with the dialogue)

Feel free; I will too!

Mizen: I was told by two men that I was needed by a Policeman in Bucks Row
Detectitive: What were their names. We'll need to talk to them.
Mizen: I didn't take them down as I assumed they would have given their details to the other officer.
Detective: PC Neil, did you take down the names of the two carmen whom you sent for help?
Neil: Sorry? Who? I found the body myself and the next person i saw was the constable I sent for Dr Llewellyn, and after that the constable I sent to fetch the ambulance... I neither saw nor sent any carmen.
Detrective Mizen!!! Care to explain???

In all likelihood, the two men would have been in Mizens notebook, so he would have had evidence to show for this. And there was of course no problem about whether or not the meeting between Mizen and the carmen took place. It was a confirmed thing. What it all therefore hinges on is the claim Lechmere made according to Mizen: That another PC was in place in Bucks Row. Once that piece is in place, Mizens ensuing actions must be gauged against it. If it is NOT in place, another picture is suggested, in which Mizen is either mistaken or a liar. But we can all see how he acted perfectly correct if he was lied to about the other PC, as well as about the nature of the errand. So that is what it boils down to, n ot to how Mizen would have been castigated regardless of what he said.

At which point Mizen would have told whatever story he considered most appropriate.

Here, you make the assumption that Mizen would have felt attacked and that he would resort to lying. Yoou will find that impossible to prove. To simply lead it on is much easier, of course. The important thing to keep I'n mind here is that it may be very perilous to treat the idea that Mizen was a liar and a weak character as the truth.

But none of this happpened...had Mizen even MENTIONED their existence to detectives, the Police WOULD have known about the existence of two anonymous witnesses, and would be actively seeking them on Friday night and throughout Saturday!

That is true, if Mizen had sought out his superiors and told them about the two men, the police would not have trod in it on the first inquest day. But, and this is an important but, why would he do so? He could read in the papers that Neil professed to have found the body himself, and that he then acquired the help of two fellow PCs, one of them being Mizen himself. And the thing is, that did not in any way swear against the story he had been told by Lechmere! When Mizen got to Bucks Row, directed there by the carman, the PC he expected to find WAS there, seemingly confirming the information he had been given by the carman. And so why would he go to his superiors and speak to them? To say "Yes, that is what happened"? The one thing he was asked about was whether there had been somebody coming into Bakers Row from Bucks Row in a manner so as to evoke attention. And there had been no such person. The only people he saw coming from that direction were the carmen who Neil had sent to him, and he will have postulated that Neil would have told his superiors all about them. Of course, Mizen could have spoken to his superiors about how a carman, in company with another carman, had approached him and told him about Neils request, but on the whole, if he simply predisposed that these two men were known about alread, then why would he? There are many who ask why he did not check with Neil, by asking him if he had really sent two carman to fetch himself, but I have no problems understanding why he didn't. When he arrived at the murder site, he was immediately sent for the ambulance and hurried off to get it. wasting time to ask Neil to confirm the bleeding obvious was not something he was going to do. And so, there is good reason to think that no derelict of duty lay behind how this information stayed hidden for such a long time.

So it is clear that Mizen made NO mention of the two men on the night of the event. Pretty striking ommission.

Yes, it is clear that Mizen did not mention the carmen. But no, it is no "omission" at all. He would have predisposed that the information was already given by Neil.

But on Sunday, Robert Paul's stories appear in Llyods calling the police out on their statement of who found the body.

Yes.

At this point the police must have felt incredibly stupid. How had they missed the existence of two eye witnesses, who had been with the body prior to Neil finding it...
Seriously...HOW?
If there is a more sensible answer than "Mizen didn't say anything..". I'd like to hear it.

There is no more sensible answer than "Mizen did not mention the carmen". But laying the blame on Mizen for it is not what should be done. As has been pointed out, he would have been of the opinion that the information was already at the police's disposal, and once we are absolutely certain of such a thing, we don't waste our colleagues´ time by reiterating what they already know.

There is NO way that the Police knew about Paul and Cross on Saturday, and still let Neil take the stand saying HE had found the body with no mention of two nameless car men.. I imagine that at some point after Cross took the stand on Monday, the Inspectors were called into chambers by Wynne Baxter and each chewed a new arsehole for getting this so badly wrong.

Yes, there will have been a reaction, and that reaction will - if I am correct - to a degree have safeguarded Lechmere from suspicion. To present a picture that is totally wrong would have been an embarrassment to the police, and, by extension, there would have been a reluctance to question what Lechmere said. After all, he brought light to the prevailing darkness - surely such a man should not be suspected of being anything but truthful?
I am sure you can see how that works, even if you don't agree about Lechmere being the culprit.

So, why would Mizen not want to draw attention to those two witnesses until they had been outed in the press?

Because he believed that Neil had already informed his superiors about them.

Maybe the answer to that is found in Paul's condemnation of Mizens actions after he had been told of a potential body in Bucks Row. From what they had told him she MIGHT still be alive.

This is where we have to be very careful. There is no evidence that Paul ever spoke to Mizen. It is only Lechmere who makes this claim, and interestingly, whe he does, he does NOT say that Paul spoke about how the woman was likely alive. He says that Paul claimed that he believed the woman was dead - and why would Paul do that, knowing as he did, that she was still warm and her chest was moving as if she was faintly breathing? There is something very much amiss here - and it is Lechmeres claim that is off.
The one passage in the inquest material that can be interpreted as Paul saying that he too spoke to Mizen is when he says that "we informed him about what we had seen", but that is a generic phrase that does not predispose that Paul actually took part in the informing. If Lechmere said "You go ahead, and I will tell him what we have seen", and if Paul was later asked if "they" had informed Mizen about what they had seen, what answer would we expect I'm to give, even if he had not spoken to Mizen himself? Yes, we did inform him? Or no, we did not inform him?

That's one callous call to go on "knocking up" while a woman may lie dying in the street, two minutes walk away.

Yes, if Mizen knew that a woman may lie dying in the street, it would be callous of him to keep on knocking people up. If he instead was only told that there was a woman on the flat of her back in Bucks Row - and that was what he WAS told, as per his sworn inquest testimony - then it would not be callous at all. He would have predisposed that the woman was drunk, in all likelihood. He would definitely NOT presume that she was a dying murder victim! So the medal has two sides, not just the one. And I would say that his reaction is one that suggests that he was never told about the severity of the errand - if he had been told that it was a case of potential murder, why would he keep on knocking people up? The sensible suggestion is that he was lied to, because that is what is mirrored in his actions.

"He probably thought Neil had mentioned them" is the sort of excuse a slightly dim witted civilian might be able offer as an excuse. Not a Copper.

He must have thought that Neil mentioned them. How could he think otherwise. And he may have thought that if he was to tell the exact same story to people who already know it, THEN he would be rated as dimwitted. It is a very understandable thing

The "A Policeman wants you in Bucks Row" is Class One Ass Covering by Mizen, and a certain section of researchers has chosen to leverage an obvious "Need to dig myself out of this **** hole I jumped into" and use it as a frame for Charles Cross being a liar, because no LEGITIMATE evidence exists to support him as a suspect above tens of thousands of other people who "Knew the area" or walked from one side of Whitechapel to the other every day.

Completely wrong. The fact that Nichols was still breathing as Paul felt her chest is evidence of how the cutting was performed very close in time to the examination. The fact that the wounds were covered is an indication of how Paul was not meant to see what had happened. The fact that Lechmere is geographically closely linked to the rest of the murders in the series belongs to the evidence against him. The fact that he disagreed with Mizen is in evidence. The fact that he omitted to say that his registered name was Lechmere is in evidence. The fact that he said that he would hear anybody moving in Bucks Row from 130 yards off, but still did not hear Paul until he was one fourth of that distance away is in evidence. The fact that Nichols bled for an extensive amount of time after Lechmere left her is in evidence. The fact that Lechmere said he left home at around 3.30 is in evidence. This should have seen him in Bucks Row at around 3.37, but coroner Baxter said that the body was found at time not far off 3.45! There is almost more evidence against the carman than there is flat out denials of that fact.

I believe he carried on knocking up, as Paul claimed, and probably hurried BACK to that job as soon as he could after fetching the ambulance, (no knock - no coin...) and the combination of Paul's newspaper story, and Cross scoming forward so quickly to the inquiry forced him to come up with a story to cover his own ass.

No knock, no coin? The PCs were not allowed to take money from the ones they knocked up, it was a duty imposed upon them by their districts. Which is good to know, because that means that nobody can try to lead on that Mizen was more interested in money than in doing his duty. Not that I think anybody WOULD do such a thing, but nevertheless!
You see, the facts covers Mizens behind on this score and exposes yours. That is how it sometimes goes!

[Fisherman]

yeah, ive always felt that the most reasonable explanation by far was there was a misunderstanding. lech probably said something like your needed in bucks row, and when mizen got there and neil was already there he misremembered that lech said another pc needs you in bucks row.simple explanation and an honest mistake.

Lechmere said "You are WANTED in Bucks Row", as per Mizen. Not "needed". And that suggests that he was told that somebody wanted him in Bucks Row. Which is in line with the claim about the PC.
Are we to suspect that when Mixen arrived in Bucks Row, he came to the conclusion that the carman must have used "wanted" and that he must have spoken of a policeman? Is that how the human memory works? You are told "You are needed in Bucks Row", you go there and when you see a PC in place, you reason "Ah, he must have said that I was WANTED in Bucks Row, not that I was needed there, and he must have mentioned the policeman too, although I did not pick up on it at the time"?

Is that in any way realistic? Personally, I don't think so.

[Tab]

Lechmere said "You are WANTED in Bucks Row", as per Mizen. Not "needed". And that suggests that he was told that somebody wanted him in Bucks Row. Which is in line with the claim about the PC.
Are we to suspect that when Mixen arrived in Bucks Row, he came to the conclusion that the carman must have used "wanted" and that he must have spoken of a policeman? Is that how the human memory works? You are told "You are needed in Bucks Row", you go there and when you see a PC in place, you reason "Ah, he must have said that I was WANTED in Bucks Row, not that I was needed there, and he must have mentioned the policeman too, although I did not pick up on it at the time"?

Is that in any way realistic? Personally, I don't think so.

My parents are from the East End, as are my uncles, aunts, cousins etc... They would often say you are "wanted" somewhere, even though no one "there" had explicitly said they wanted me. Sometimes there wasn't even anybody there at all. For example, "You're wanted in the kitchen, the bloody blind has fallen off again". No one was in kitchen wanting me. It was they themselves wanting me there. It's a turn of phrase and just how they spoke.

Is this anecdotal? Yes. Is this just a quirk of my family? Possibly. But it seems a likely trait of those living in the East End.

So it is not unreasonable to suggest Lechmere said your are wanted in Bucks Row, not that anybody there explicitly wanted him, and when Mizen arrived seeing a police officer there he assumed that it was him that had wanted him. From then on that is simply the memory that he had?

[Fisherman]

My parents are from the East End, as are my uncles, aunts, cousins etc... They would often say you are "wanted" somewhere, even though no one "there" had explicitly said they wanted me. Sometimes there wasn't even anybody there at all. For example, "You're wanted in the kitchen, the bloody blind has fallen off again". No one was in kitchen wanting me. It was they themselves wanting me there. It's a turn of phrase and just how they spoke.

Is this anecdotal? Yes. Is this just a quirk of my family? Possibly. But it seems a likely trait of those living in the East End.

So it is not unreasonable to suggest Lechmere said your are wanted in Bucks Row, not that anybody there explicitly wanted him, and when Mizen arrived seeing a police officer there he assumed that it was him that had wanted him. From then on that is simply the memory that he had?

These things can never be clarified with no doubt from any side, that´s just how it is. But I would make the presumption that ”wanted” is more likely to point to somebody being in place than ”needed”, where we all know that no such thing is required. Otherwise, I take your point about Eastendish, it is not a language I speak myself.

When it comes to the ”you are wanted by a policeman”, I have always been of the meaning that since policing was Mizens line of work, he would not make any mistakes about such a thing. He would immediately understand that a colleague of his had requested his help. And if he had not been told about that request, I am anything but sure that he would leave his beat; he was not supposed to do so.

For me, it all pans out the way Mizen suggested things went down. And I would have wanted Lechmere to clarify that he himself was the finder, something that he never did. Verbally, I think it would be hard to hide that fact away - unless that other PC was added. Otherwise, it would be a situation of either ”There ´s a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, officer!” - and that sentence would have Mizen thinking that the carmen were the finders. Alternatively, and perhaps more naturally, the message would have been ”Officer, we found a woman lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, you need to come!” - and there would be nothiong to quibble about today.
It is only if another explanation is offered that Mizen would not have predisposed or asked about it, the way I see it. If he was told that another PC had sent the carmen to fetch himself, THEN he would be likely to do things the way he did them. Similarly, if he was NOT told about the potential severity of the errand, he would feel more at ease to complete the knocking up errand he had started, before he set off. Conversely, if he was told that the woman was likely to be dead or dying, finishing that knocking up errand would be incredibly callous - and stupid, if both carmen were witnesses to ho the matter was handled.
Logic suggests that Mizen was always on the money - and Lechmere was lying.