Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Abby Normal]

I find it a bit of a coincidence that Lechmere is meant to have invented a copper at the scene then hey presto Mizen finds a real copper at the scene. Much more likely in my view that Mizen projected this fact - by accident or design - on to what he was being told while occupied with knocking up. Neatens up and makes sense of the whole thing from his point of view. He finds PC Neil with Nichols and fancies that was what Lechmere was trying to tell him.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I agree that this is the most likely scenario.

However, what if Mizen was right? I have a tiny little problem with the dismissiveness that most posters here that Mizen simply was mistaken, covering his arse.. etc.
It reminds me of the whole GSG and the PC "probably missed it" apron fiasco because people cant fathom that a killer would have hung around or returned after an hour or so to drop the apron and write the graffiti.

Even when we have a policeman swearing under oath and being quite certain in both cases that they were correct.

Its in the record folks! it has to be considered and not dismissed with the wave of a hand. Mizen could have been correct and if it he was -then what?

[Abby Normal]

Brilliant post, David! Far too much was made of this alleged 9 minute murder window.

Love,

Caz
X

Not so sure.
According to the various reports-Lech said he left home at 3:30 or 3:20.
If he left home at 3:20, enough time to find her on WC road walk to bucks row and kill her. If he left at 3:30, enough time to find her in bucks row and kill her.

Also, those are times he gave, he may have lied and left earlier.

[Lechmere]

Watch it Abby you are being too reasonable.

The responses to Long's discovery of the apron is interesting. Notice that what is known of Long's character is routinetly weighed in the mix - his recent transfer and subsequent dismissal. But Mizen's character is disallowed (exemplary record and religious do-gooder).
Such is the way things are judged on here though.

[Lechmere]

Ah Colin I see what you mean now.
People ask a question over something we have no firm evidence for and I or Fisherman have a tendency to postulate answers - which incidentally are not given as hard and fast answers. Just guilty sounding options, as the person posing the question will invariably be making the case that any guilty interpretation is impossible.
That does not mean that either Fisherman or myself have firmly put our eggs in the more speculative baskets.

Caz
Keep your hair on - I didn't suggest you were hiding from me of Fisherman.

[Ben]

The point, surely, is that this alleged discrepancy was aired at the inquest. The opportunity to clarify matters was right there and then - "Hang on! You said that Cross said you were wanted by a policeman, but Cross claims he never said that. Let's sort out this mess, fellow jurors!". The fact that this never happened is an indication that it's just a modern mountain being made out of a molehill. Mizen evidently accepted his error, which is why he never challenged Cross's denial. It's very obvious that Cross's original words - undoubtedly in the presence of Paul - were something to the effect of "you are wanted in Buck's Row", i.e. "your assistance is required", which Mizen erroneously took to mean a specific person was already on site and needed back-up.

The idea that Mizen knew he was being "scammed" at a public inquest, but took no steps to recommend Cross for investigative scrutiny, is particularly absurd.

[Scott Nelson]

I can't see him standing by a tram stop with a human kidney in one hand and his ticket in the other?

Don't be ridiculous. The ticket would have been in his pocket.

[David Orsam]

The point, surely, is that this alleged discrepancy was aired at the inquest. The opportunity to clarify matters was right there and then - "Hang on! You said that Cross said you were wanted by a policeman, but Cross claims he never said that. Let's sort out this mess, fellow jurors!". The fact that this never happened is an indication that it's just a modern mountain being made out of a molehill. Mizen evidently accepted his error, which is why he never challenged Cross's denial.

When Cross said he never mentioned a policeman to Mizen at the inquest, Mizen had already given his evidence and had left the witness box, if not the court room, so there was no opportunity for the jury to ask Mizen about it. Nor was there any opportunity for Mizen to challenge Cross's denial.

[Lechmere]

Ben
Those of us that have studied the inquest realise there were a number of police related discrepancies that came to light - the only one that the coroner drew particular attention to was the failure to interview most Bucks Row residents. The Mizen discrepancy seems to have been glossed over.
But that doesn't stop all sorts of wudda cudda shudda claims being made to explain it away.

[Simon Owen]

Hi Caz
I agree that this is the most likely scenario.

However, what if Mizen was right? I have a tiny little problem with the dismissiveness that most posters here that Mizen simply was mistaken, covering his arse.. etc.
It reminds me of the whole GSG and the PC "probably missed it" apron fiasco because people cant fathom that a killer would have hung around or returned after an hour or so to drop the apron and write the graffiti.

Even when we have a policeman swearing under oath and being quite certain in both cases that they were correct.

Its in the record folks! it has to be considered and not dismissed with the wave of a hand. Mizen could have been correct and if it he was -then what?

If it's an inquest then I don't think that witnesses are made to swear an oath unlike in a court trial : I'm not 100% sure of that however.
I've always thought that it was Mizen who lied about being told a policeman wanted him , he made it up to excuse his late arrival at the scene of the crime. If it was thought he believed there was a policeman already with the body then it wouldn't look so bad on him for not attending the scene until some other police officer had found the corpse. The correct action was surely for Mizen to get Cross and Paul to take him to where the body was.

[David Orsam]

If it's an inquest then I don't think that witnesses are made to swear an oath unlike in a court trial : I'm not 100% sure of that however.

Witnesses at the inquests would either have sworn on the bible or affirmed.

[pinkmoon]

Get him of the hook.....well I don't think he was ever on the hook in the first place people look at this case and try to make big deal out of little things and it snowballs quite quickly into case closed which is wrong.The police must have looked closely at anyone who discoverd a body or is seen near a body just before they arrive on the scene Mr cross has been proposed as jack the ripper purely because he gave a false name but gave his correct address I think that very fact must eliminate him from this case.In the next few years I have no doubt that the gentleman who discoverd Mary Kelly's remains will be accused as well as other totally innocent people involved in this case.

[The Good Michael]

The correct action was surely for Mizen to get Cross and Paul to take him to where the body was.

Aboslutely, and this means, as I said somewhere in the thread, that Mizen was not a good cop on that particular day at the very least. I would suggest his job was in jeopardy. To create a story that a policeman wanted him quickly, would give him an excuse for not doing the right thing, albeit a a bad excuse at that. It doesn't matter much now that the focus has been shifted (rightly so) to Paul now.

Mike

[Fisherman]

If it's an inquest then I don't think that witnesses are made to swear an oath unlike in a court trial : I'm not 100% sure of that however.
I've always thought that it was Mizen who lied about being told a policeman wanted him , he made it up to excuse his late arrival at the scene of the crime. If it was thought he believed there was a policeman already with the body then it wouldn't look so bad on him for not attending the scene until some other police officer had found the corpse. The correct action was surely for Mizen to get Cross and Paul to take him to where the body was.

Simon!

I would like to ask you to look at the three lies that Lechmere seemingly served in his testimony. It is not just the extra PC that we can look at!

1. The extra PC.
2. The severity - while Lechmere says that he and Paul told Mizen that the woman was quite probably dead, Mizen says that he was only told that there was a woman lying flat on her back in Buckīs Row - a woman who was already tended to by another PC:
3. Who did the talking - while Lechmere says that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, the latter makes it very clear that just the onee man approached him and spoke: Lechmere.

Look at lie number three! Who stood to gain from that one?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Aboslutely, and this means, as I said somewhere in the thread, that Mizen was not a good cop on that particular day at the very least. I would suggest his job was in jeopardy. To create a story that a policeman wanted him quickly, would give him an excuse for not doing the right thing, albeit a a bad excuse at that. It doesn't matter much now that the focus has been shifted (rightly so) to Paul now.

Mike

Interesting. Andy Griffiths said that Mizen would have had nothing to fear, and that he therefore was not a probable liar.

I also think itīs much a question of perspectives here. If Mizen was not a good policeman, he may have got it wrong, and then he may have tried to lie his way out.

Then again, the records tell us that he WAS a good policeman, and we can - hopefully - all see that if he was lied to about that other PC, it would have been totally logical to surmise that his colleague had taken care of anything that needed to be taken care of visavi the carmen.

Edward has a veru good point when he points out how the same people who are extremely eager to point to Alfred Longs service record to explain why he would have been wrong about the apron business, are now willing to throw all service record considerations overboard so that they can brand Mizen a liar too. In competition, that is, with a man who consciously avoided to give the police and inquest his correct name.

It is much more interesting than it is consistent. And quite, quite revealing.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

What about Paul saying he spoke to Mizen, who's version does that support Mizen or Cross?