The Lechmere trail - so far

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps you'll become a better resesarcher, journalist, and Ripperologist as a result of this fiasco.

Steady on, Patrick :-)
It`s okay (I think) to lay into a theory but we shouldn`t get personal. Christer is a good man and always (up to a point anyway) takes the time to reply to people. He is an excellent researcher, though we may disagree on his conclusions.
I look forward to your dissertation. Will it be in The Ripperologist ?

[Bridewell]

This is what he (Mizen) said, according to The Times:

stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury Street, Bakers Row and a man passing said, "You are wanted in Bucks Row". The man named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he found Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury Street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Bucks Row he continued knocking people up.

Some interesting points to note: For Mizen to have denied continuing to knock up there must have been an allegation that he did exactly that. Cross has not yet been in the witness box and yet Mizen names Cross as being the man who spoke to him. The two men "didn't say anything about a murder having been committed" yet they clearly did say, according to Mizen's own testimony, that it was a colleague who wanted him because "a woman had been found there". What did Mizen imagine was likely to be the case if an officer from another Division needed his help with a woman who had been found? What about the timings in all this? Mizen says the two men approached him "at a quarter past 4", yet Robert Paul told the inquest that when they met Mizen "not more than 4 minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body". Then we have Crossmere saying that he left home at 3.20am and arrived at work at 4am. We also have Neil claiming that he had spoken to the slaughterhouse men at "a quarter past 3, or half an hour before he found the body" ergo he found the body at 3,45am. If all these timings are taken in conjunction and as being at least approximately correct it would mean that Neil found the body at 3.45am and it was then found again by Crossmere (then Paul) sometime between 4am and 4.10am. It would also, of necessity, mean that Cross/Lechmere arrived at work some minutes after he said he did. Either Paul is a million miles out with his time estimate or the body was found twice and not in the order we've always assumed. That, in turn, would mean that Neil had found and left the body before Crossmere and Paul turned up. Why, if he was the killer, would Cross/Lechmere return to find his own victim if, as would have to have been the case, he had already got away scot free. Perhaps it's just me but I'm wondering if Cross/Lechmere found a body which Neil had already discovered.

[Patrick S]

Yes, SOMEONE was covering his back. Explain to me why Lechmere said that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen, whereas Mizen himself said that Lechmere was the guy doing the talking.
Who is telling the truth here, and what is on stake for the respective parties? Why would not Mizen admit that both men had spoken to him - if that was indeed the case?

LOOK THERE! OVER THERE! Don't look here! If you do you'll see that I'm diverting your attention from....you know.....actual facts.

[Patrick S]

caz: Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Here we go again with all of these "completely untenable" arguments!

Point one. Paul was not likely to miss the woman. He said that she was impossible to miss, more or less: "If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see."

So it seems there was no practical chance of this happening.

Furthermore, when Paul arrived at the yard gate, Lechmere was standing still in the middle of the street. It therefore seems he had decided beforehand to bluff it out. Keep in mind that it seems he had covered the wounds to the abdomen - that should tell the story.

The fact that Paul tried to avoid him would in that context have been something that Lechmere was not willing to allow for. He knew that the woman would be seen, he know that Paul would see him and he also knew that if he did not interact with Paul, there was a clear risk that Paul would either A/ notice the murder and/or B/ pass the body by, and then contact the police once the murder was discovered. Such a thing would of course allow Lechmere to leave the body afterwards and get out of the area, but he would do so with a man on the loose who could testify about Lechmere´s having been in place. It would carry with itself a great risk of the police deciding on hoim being the probable killer and starting to look for him with the aid of Paul.
No matter which choice he opted for, it would involve risks. Never loose track of this - there was ALWAYS going to be risks involved in what the Ripper did. He was not squeamish. He would not cancel on account of being afraid.
I think he made a very clever choice. And, as I said, it seems he decided on trying it before he knew who the stranger was.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

This little amusement on your behalf is really enlightening. Compare with how things developed, and how Lechmere said he would not help prop her up. It comes wuite close to what you think is a joke!

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely.

Yes, that is absolutely true!

His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

To some extent, he could have ruled what happened. He could have instructed Paul what to do, what to feel etcetera. And keep in mind that he drew the line when a prop-up was suggested! He may well have been very much in control - and he may have enjoyed it.
But overall, there was always going to be a risk that Paul saw that the woman had been killed.

How the carman would have solved that issue is something we can only speculate about. Maybe Neil would have found two dead bodies. Maybe Lechmere would have said "Good God, let´s find a PC! You take that road and I´ll take this!"

Caz, in discussing all of this you need to respect that my suggestion is that we are dealing with a psychopath. They thrive on playing games, lying, playing the upright citizen etcetera. If Lechmere decided long before Paul reached the stable gate to bluff the oncomer - and the hiding of the wounds indicates this - then we can be sure that this was a man who had nothing at all against taking his chances and playing a dangerous game.

There is nothing at all untenable about it, I´m afraid.

Hi, Christer! I hope you're day is going quite well. I see you've made a few inane and ridiculous, cherry-picked points to 'caz' here. I liked her dialouge very much! You, it seems, not so much. Alas, as I'm sure you've read, I've managed to rather easily further reduce your conclusion to rubble, exposing it - to an even greater extent - as the laughingstock its become. Fact. Dates. Those kinds of things.....very tough to refute, I'm afraid. They tend to stand up against romantic notions of 'scams' and crystal balls, don't they?

You'll be pleased to know that I'm working on a dissertation that will bring it all together and serve - hopefully - as resource for anyone foolish enough to buy into this mealy-mouthed blather. By putting all of the actual information and chronology of events in one spot, we should able to comfine your pathetic little tale to history's dustbin. If only you'd have brought even cursory analytical skills to this task, you'd have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment. Still, I give you an 'E' for effort, but, sadly, and 'F' for foolishness.

Don't dispair. Thanks to your 'hit job' on Cross, we've managed to learn a great deal about Jonas Mizen and why he behaved as he did. We know he didn't tell his superiors or collegues about his redezvous in Bucks Row. We now know why he didn't, why he testified as he did, came forward when he did. I'm not saying the man wasn't a good Christian Gentleman and keeper of the policemans sacred and solemn oath. I am rather convinced that he messed up 'royally' in the Nichols affair. I'm sure he learned a lesson and became better cop as a result. Perhaps you'll become a better resesarcher, journalist, and Ripperologist as a result of this fiasco.

We can hope.....

[Abby Normal]

If there was a 'Like' button on Casebook I'd press it. You and I know that officers take pains to cover their backs in the face of criticism. That is not to say that all of them were doing so but certainly some. One of the most common entries in the disciplinary records then, as in later years, involved drinking (or even drunkenness) on duty. P.c. Alfred Long was dismissed for the latter in 1889, yet is hailed as a model policeman by some and his timings taken as sacrosanct. I would never argue that officers' timings should be discarded as worthless but they should be treated with caution. Mizen claimed he was told that a colleague needed his help in Bucks Row when that was clearly not the case. That looks like back covering to me.

If there was a "Dislike" button on Casebook i'd press it.

What did Mizen do wrong? Its not like they came up to him screaming bloddy murder. there was uncertainty of her condition. Mizen probably heard that kind of thing 10 times a day.

Was he punished for his actions that night? Reprimanded? did the coroner caution him? Negative.

It could have been a simple misunderstanding, or misremembering (especially since when he arrived at the body the other PC WAS there).

or maybe Lech lied-it dosnt need to be because he was the killer-maybe he just didn't want to be late for work. Maybe lech misspoke accidently.

We have PC giving sworn testimony on record. The whole PC lied to cover his arse excuse is one of the lamest arguments Ive ever seen on Casebook.

Sorry but I think your profession may have made you cynical.

[Fisherman]

If there was a 'Like' button on Casebook I'd press it. You and I know that officers take pains to cover their backs in the face of criticism. That is not to say that all of them were doing so but certainly some. One of the most common entries in the disciplinary records then, as in later years, involved drinking (or even drunkenness) on duty. P.c. Alfred Long was dismissed for the latter in 1889, yet is hailed as a model policeman by some and his timings taken as sacrosanct. I would never argue that officers' timings should be discarded as worthless but they should be treated with caution. Mizen claimed he was told that a colleague needed his help in Bucks Row when that was clearly not the case. That looks like back covering to me.

Yes, SOMEONE was covering his back. Explain to me why Lechmere said that both he and Paul spoke to Mizen, whereas Mizen himself said that Lechmere was the guy doing the talking.
Who is telling the truth here, and what is on stake for the respective parties? Why would not Mizen admit that both men had spoken to him - if that was indeed the case?

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Here we go again with all of these "completely untenable" arguments!

Point one. Paul was not likely to miss the woman. He said that she was impossible to miss, more or less: "If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see."

So it seems there was no practical chance of this happening.

Furthermore, when Paul arrived at the yard gate, Lechmere was standing still in the middle of the street. It therefore seems he had decided beforehand to bluff it out. Keep in mind that it seems he had covered the wounds to the abdomen - that should tell the story; the preparations were made.

The fact that Paul tried to avoid him would in that context have been something that Lechmere was not willing to allow for. He knew that the woman would be seen, he know that Paul would see him and he also knew that if he did not interact with Paul, there was a clear risk that Paul would either A/ notice the murder and/or B/ pass the body by, and then contact the police once the murder was discovered. Such a thing would of course allow Lechmere to leave the body afterwards and get out of the area, but he would do so with a man on the loose who could testify about Lechmere´s having been in place. It would carry with itself a great risk of the police deciding on hoim being the probable killer and starting to look for him with the aid of Paul.
No matter which choice he opted for, it would involve risks. Never loose track of this - there was ALWAYS going to be risks involved in what the Ripper did. He was not squeamish. He would not cancel on account of being afraid.
I think he made a very clever choice. And, as I said, it seems he decided on trying it before he knew who the stranger was.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

This little amusement on your behalf is really enlightening. Compare with how things developed, and how Lechmere said he would not help prop her up. It comes quite close to what you think is a joke!

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely.

Yes, that is absolutely true!

His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

To some extent, he could have ruled what happened. He could have instructed Paul what to do, what to feel etcetera. And keep in mind that he drew the line when a prop-up was suggested! He may well have been very much in control - and he may have enjoyed it.
But overall, there was always going to be a risk that Paul saw that the woman had been killed.

How the carman would have solved that issue is something we can only speculate about. Maybe Neil would have found two dead bodies. Maybe Lechmere would have said "Good God, let´s find a PC! You take that road and I´ll take this!"

Caz, in discussing all of this you need to respect that my suggestion is that we are dealing with a psychopath. They thrive on playing games, lying, playing the upright citizen etcetera. If Lechmere decided long before Paul reached the stable gate to bluff the oncomer - and the hiding of the wounds indicates this - then we can be sure that this was a man who had nothing at all against taking his chances and playing a dangerous game.

There is nothing at all untenable about it, I´m afraid.

[Patrick S]

Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

Lechmere : "Oh f***! Gotta go, the cat needs feeding."

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely. His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

Love,

Caz
X

PERFECT!

[Abby Normal]

Hello Patrick,


If Mizen’s story was true, he was not obliged to take Xmere and Paul’s names. If Paul and Xmere’s story was true, he was. Either way he was obliged to write the incident down in his log. The Strange part is, two days after the murder. Mizen is reported in the newspapers as denying he saw anyone in Baker Street.
“These officers (Mizen and Thain) had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention …”

Equally bizarre, Mizen never mentioned the two men to Neil. Even stranger he was sent to Bethnal Green Police Station not only to get the ambulance but also reinforcements.



Being an H division copper off his patch he would have had to explain himself to the J division officers and some would have returned on the 15 to 20 minute back to the murder site with them, yet it appears he never mentioned the two men at any stage.



It gets worse, he went to the mortuary with the others (it was situated on his beat) and still he didn’t mention Xmere and Paul.

Re the timing of Xmere approach to the police;



At the end of the Saturday’s inquest, Abberline requested a meeting with Baxter asking for a delay as new evidence had come to light that he would like to present at the next inquest. Was that evidence Xmere? If it was then Xmere approached the police prior to Paul’s interview being published. And Xmere DID appear the next time the inquest convened.



Of course I’m moving into Fish’s area here, there is no proof, I’m just wondering.

Hi Dr strange
wouldn't Mizen not mentioning Paul and cross seem to corroborate his version of what happened?

He would have thought they had already spoken to and known by the PC who found Nichols.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not trying to defend Fish something he can easily do by himself but when I hear someone question the whole of a theory because it may contain certain flaws, it's as if a theory has to be perfect before recieving a certain degree of acceptance. Even Einstein's theories still contain flaws depending on the dimensional level you exam it.

I believe we are in the presence of contradictions, ambiguities, partial evidence, lack of desirable documentation in the Lechmere case and Fish has probably been one of the very few riperologists trying to come up with a logical understanding of the puzzle.

As I said before, I don't share his conclusion but many are currently using a different set of evidence presentation rules and of course come with a different conclusion. It's as if everyone is picking up a different series of bed crumbs and try to define exactly the nature of the loaf of bread. Now what really pisses me is when some can't or won't admit serving their own agenda when 'offering' us their presumed expert feedback. As far as I'm concerned, they only manage to introduce a slice of their own loaf obviuosly ignoring what a real loaf of bread looks like.

Respectfully yours.
Hercule Poirot

great post HP

[Bridewell]

I've always wondered whether Harvey really went to the end of Church Passage. He was dismissed for something a year later, but we don't know what.

Indeed and his personal file makes interesting reading, more for what it doesn't contain than what it does. There are references recommending his appointment but everything else has been weeded out. Why leave the documents which justify his appointment but discard those which justify his dismissal? Not necessarily sinister but certainly strange. The only reference is the single word "Dismissed" in heavy pencil on the file cover.

[Robert]

I've always wondered whether Harvey really went to the end of Church Passage. He was dismissed for something a year later, but we don't know what.

[Bridewell]

I am in total agreement with all that you say and refer back to the days when policemen on foot beats were supposed to check the doors of shops and businesses.

If in the morning a property had been found to have been broken into. The next night when the officer on that beat came on duty he would have been questioned about his movements the previous night and the checking of the said property.

Now if he hadn't bothered to check that property he is not going to say so for obvious reasons.He is going to say that he had checked it at a specific time or times and noticed nothing, this to cover his backside and a reason for not finding the insecurity.

We have what could be similar scenarios with regards to the movements of police officers throughout these murders, and timings and where they said they were, when in fact they may not have been at those places at the times when they said they were.

So the police evidence is not to be totally relied upon as being 100% reliable.

But of course like the doctors evidence in these murders which has now been brought into question so must the police evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If there was a 'Like' button on Casebook I'd press it. You and I know that officers take pains to cover their backs in the face of criticism. That is not to say that all of them were doing so but certainly some. One of the most common entries in the disciplinary records then, as in later years, involved drinking (or even drunkenness) on duty. P.c. Alfred Long was dismissed for the latter in 1889, yet is hailed as a model policeman by some and his timings taken as sacrosanct. I would never argue that officers' timings should be discarded as worthless but they should be treated with caution. Mizen claimed he was told that a colleague needed his help in Bucks Row when that was clearly not the case. That looks like back covering to me.

[caz]

Number 2: The wounds to the abdomen were covered, whereas this does not apply in the other Ripper cases. Was that a coincidence, or did it serve the practical purpose of hiding from Paul what had really happened? If Paul had discovered that it was a murder, then Lechmere would not have been able to leave the premises without suspicion.

Hi Fisherman,

Isn't this argument rendered completely untenable by the known reactions of Lechmere to the fact that Paul was trying to avoid him, not yet aware that some poor woman was lying nearby and might need his help? Lechmere was having none of it. He actively prevented Paul from going on his way by touching him on the shoulder and persuading him to go with him to look at the woman. You say that Lechmere could not leave the scene without suspicion if Paul were to discover she had just been murdered, so how on earth was he expecting to stop Paul finding out, having specifically collared him to gawp at her? Remember, Lechmere has no idea who Paul is, or anything about him.

Lechmere : "Here, come with me and look at this woman."

Paul : "Okay, sorry, I was wary at first 'cos of the rough sorts you can get round here. She doesn't look too good, does she?"

Lechmere : "Okay, that's close enough, buster."

Paul : "What? You wanted me to help find out what was the matter with the poor dear and you're in luck because I have some first aid skills, so let me just... Good God, her head's nearly off!"

Lechmere : "Oh f***! Gotta go, the cat needs feeding."

Lechmere was on a hiding to nothing if Paul had a mind to examine the corpse more closely. His only options would be to physically prevent Paul from doing so, immediately raising suspicions of foul play, or to flee, hoping Paul hadn't by now seen and heard enough to get him identified.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Christer says this:

I believe that he came in after having read how Paul said that he had found Lechmere standing where the woman was.

Let's be very clear. This is dishonest. And that's being charitable.

Paul did not say he saw Lechmere. He did not say he saw a man fitting a certain description. He said he saw 'a man'. Further, Paul does not describe this NAMELESS, FACELESS man as having accompanied him to Bakers Row. He does not have this NAMELESS, FACELESS man speaking with the PC he met there. In Paul's story he interacts briefly with the man in Bucks Row, and then goes on ALONE in search of a policeman. And THIS is what you say drove Cross out and forced him to come forward? I refuse to consider that - even you, with something to sell - actually believe this.

And Christer says this: As it happens, the police chose not to believe Paul, but that was not something that Lechmere could have foreseen.

If you take the time to check the wordings between what Lechmere says at the inquest and what Paul said in the interview, you will see that there are a great many very close likenesses and formulations.

I will say this again. This is totally irrelevant. It's another diversion by Christer to draw attention from the more damaging issue: Why in the hell would Cross come forward because Paul gave the statement he did? The answer, of course, is simple: HE WOULDN'T HAVE. He wasn't described, as a carman or otherwise, to ANY degree (save for being a male) by Paul.

And Christer says this too: Whether they could track him or not is not a very difficult question. If they searched for a man, looking like a carman, who passed trough Bucks Row at around 3.45 in the mornings, there would not be very many to choose from. And Paul could identify him, just as Mizen could - Mizen and his colleagues would arguably have met him on the streets before.

Now we get to the TRULY ABSURD. It's become clear that Christer is working very hard to keep this 'theory' of his alive. First off, and nothing beyond this point matters (but there is more): There was NOTHING said about Cross being a Carman or 'passing through Bucks Row'. He could just have well have lived in Bucks Row, or very near Bucks Row, or been the customer at a nearby pub. Now Christer gives the police a crystal ball. They know that Cross - who is not described by at all by Paul, Mizen at this point has not come forward - is a carman, on his way to work.

Further, Mizen testified at the inquest, on Monday, the same day that Cross testified, that he was approached by a carman. More, we do not have the testimony. We have a very brief summation in the papers. Mizen is reported to have said, "when a carman who passed in company with another man".

But, it gets worse here. Sunday's paper described Paul, not Cross as a carman. So, if we accuse Cross of parroting what Paul had said in the papers, can we not make the same accusation against Mizen? Further, isn't it also VERY possible that the reporter simply inserted the knowlege he already had into the testimony? He likely knew Paul was a 'carman'. He'd said so in the previous day's paper. This news was, after all, to quote from "New Evidence" a 'BOMBSHELL!'. Thus, it was liklely widely discussed. It's clear that PAUL was carman and Cross was the other man. Yet, again, this is ALL irrelevant in that this testimony cam AFTER Cross had already come forward. So, again, this is complete bunk! Again. Sorry. So it goes.

So. That statement that drove Cross out of HIDING.....doesn't mention him by name (either name, his real one or his 'fake' one), doesn't describe him (not his height, build, hair color, age, clothing), doesn't indicate he was on his way to work, doesn't say he lived in Doveton Street, doesn't say he worked at Pickfords, and it sure as hell doesn't say he was a carman, doesn't say the police want to talk to him. It doesn't have him doing much of anything other than calling Paul over. Paul - in his telling (clearly meant to play up HIS role) - takes over at that point. Cross, if one actually reads, disappears into the night, he's not on his way to work, on his way home, out for fresh air, or otherwise. Paul goes on. Paul says he told the man that he (Paul) would find a cop and send him. That's it. "The man" disappears from the story. He has no more lines. No further part to play. Yet.....this scares Cross into going back to the police? Oh......okay. Good call.

ONE MORE POINT and this is another very strong one, if I do say so myself:

PAUL is specific enough about one individual to force HIM to come forward: Jonas Mizen. He says he "saw one (PC) in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up". I am quite certain that the police would be able to identify which of their collegues Mr. Paul spoke to at that time in that place.

So, we now can be certain why Mizen came forward. He was either called on the carpet or decided to share his encounter with his superiors after he read Lloyd's on Sunday. We still have no good reason why Cross came forward (if he killed Nichols, that is). My best guess is that he read Paul's account and thought, "HEY! That's not how it happened! I went with him looking for a cop, too!"

For those who'd like to see it again, this is what Paul said, published on Sunday:

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one 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, 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. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

This is what Mizen said on MONDAY (and remember) on SATURDAY Neil testified that HE - and he alone - had found the body. Not Paul and Cross. Neil. And Mizen sure as hell had not described 'a carman' or anthing else before this testimony on MONDAY the same day that Cross came forward and testified.

Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

NOTE THAT THIS IS FAR FROM A QUOTATION! This is a summation of what Mizen said at the inquest. We have no proof that he said he was approached by a carman. Further, if he DID say carman, it was PAUL who was described as such in Lloyd's the previous day. NOT CROSS.

I know that Christer will not respond to me. He's angry that I've helped destroy this...uh...conclusion......of his. Perhaps someone else can comment. Thus, he can repsond to me, though you....like any adult would.

I have to say, much like Christer in 'Missing Evidence', I'm getting emontional...knowing I've gotten this kind of confirmation from, you know, actual facts and rational thinking (sniff....sniff).