Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[The Good Michael]

it remains the fact that the evidence of PC Mizen was that he was told by Lechmere that he was wanted by a policeman at the murder site when this was not true.

No it doesn't. Either one of them lied, or Mizen was mistaken. If Cross and Paul were together, it doesn't seem likely that Cross would have lied and expected to get away with it. That weighs it, in my mind, towards a mistake. Again, one word can make all the difference and what Mizen heard may not have been exactly what was said. Of course it is normal for people to not absolutely understand each other. The fact that Neil was there made Mizen absolutely believe that, what he thought he heard, he did, in fact hear.

Mike

[David Orsam]

No it doesn't. Either one of them lied, or Mizen was mistaken.

Mike, I think you have misunderstood the point. The evidence in the case - by which I mean the police evidence - is that Cross lied to Mizen. That is the evidence. Now, you can personally interpret that evidence any way you like but that doesn't change what the evidence is. Let me try and make it a bit clearer for you. If PC Mizen had said in his sworn evidence that he saw Cross cut the throat of Polly Nichols (but Cross denied it) that would be the evidence in the case. Mizen might have been lying or mistaken in either his identification of Cross or his understanding of what he had seen but the police evidence in the case would be that Mizen saw Cross murder Nichols. That in itself would not necessarily prove that Cross was the killer. It's the same with Mizen's evidence about what Cross said to him. You can try and explain it away as much as you like but it is the evidence in the case.

[Chris]

The evidence in the case - by which I mean the police evidence - is that Cross lied to Mizen. That is the evidence.

No. The evidence in the case is conflicting. Mizen's evidence conflicts with Cross's.

I could just as well say "The evidence in the case - by which I mean the civilian evidence - is that Mizen lied about what Cross had said. That is the evidence. "

But I wouldn't say that, because it would be just too ridiculous for words.

[Robert]

To be absolutely nit-picking, the police evidence is not that Crossmere lied to Mizen. That's because even if something is intended as a lie, if it turns out to be true then a lie has not been told. And since Neil very probably did want Mizen, then, from a nit-picking point of view, Crossmere did not lie.

[David Orsam]

No. The evidence in the case is conflicting. Mizen's evidence conflicts with Cross's.

In essence, you are actually agreeing with me because you are accepting that what Mizen said is evidence. I'm happy to rephrase and say that the evidence of PC Mizen in this case is that Cross said something to him which was untruthful. That is the evidence in the case - by which I mean the evidence of PC Mizen. So there is evidence that Cross lied about a policeman being at the scene. It doesn't prove he did, but it is evidence. And you are right that the evidence of Cross conflicts with the evidence of PC Mizen. But it doesn't change what PC Mizen's evidence actually is. Thus, for that reason, it's not being entirely fair to Fisherman to say that the case against Cross is all opinion and no evidence because he does have some evidence as his starting point. More than any other suspect I would suggest.

[Chris]

That is the evidence in the case - by which I mean the evidence of PC Mizen.

Not the evidence. One part of a conflicting set of evidence.

[David Orsam]

To be absolutely nit-picking, the police evidence is not that Crossmere lied to Mizen. That's because even if something is intended as a lie, if it turns out to be true then a lie has not been told. And since Neil very probably did want Mizen, then, from a nit-picking point of view, Crossmere did not lie.

Good luck with that if that's your defence to a murder charge.

But even if what you are saying is correct - which I don't accept - then Cross lied on oath at the Coroner's Inquiry because he said he didn't tell Mizen that a policeman wanted him. So there's the evidence against him right there.

[David Orsam]

Not the evidence. One part of a conflicting set of evidence.

I'm even happy to rephrase by saying it is evidence in the case. The evidence of PC Mizen. So there is evidence against Cross.

[Chris]

I'm even happy to rephrase by saying it is evidence in the case.

Well done, but at the same time what a shame. One step further and you could have achieved balance.

[David Orsam]

Well done, but at the same time what a shame. One step further and you could have achieved balance.

I don't understand this response. When rephrasing, I wasn't saying anything different. I was just trying to make it clearer for you. In saying "the evidence in the case" I didn't mean "the only evidence in the case". That's why I qualified it by saying "by which I mean the police evidence". I meant it was the evidence of PC Mizen. It's a statement of fact and just not something that it's possible to argue with.

[Robert]

Crossmere may have lied on oath, though I doubt it. The interesting thing is that if he was guilty, he nevertheless didn't try to explain away the discrepancy, e.g. he didn't say "I told him a policeman was wanted in Buck's Row," or whatever form of words was the closest to what he actually said (in case Paul was within earshot). So he doesn't seem to have felt threatened or on the defensive at the inquest.

[David Orsam]

Crossmere may have lied on oath, though I doubt it.

You suggested that he could truthfully have told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row even though he had never seen or spoken to a policeman in Buck's Row. I was merely pointing out that, in that case, he definitely lied to the Coroner.

[Chris]

I don't understand this response.

What's so difficult to understand? You know what "balance" means, don't you?

If there are two conflicting pieces of evidence, A and B, a balanced statement of the evidence includes them both. To say "The evidence is A" is patently unbalanced.

Think of a judge, summing up the evidence. Would he say to the jury "The evidence is A"?

[Robert]

Yes that's right. If he told the Coroner that he had not told Mizen that he was wanted by a policeman, when in fact he had said that to Mizen, then he would have been lying to the Coroner.

[Robert]

Nowadays if a man is run down by a truck, the police don't appeal for info about a man being run down by a truck, or hit by a truck, etc, they say that the man was in collision with a truck, which I suppose is to avoid biasing any future jury.