The Lechmere trail - so far

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick


HAHA! Now that's funny!

That scenario might be possible. However, I do detect a certain amount of Lech not wanting to give as much personal info about himself as possible.


What leads you to believe that? I'm interested because I'm finding that we have very little from the man himself.

It seems to me he might be trying to hide all this from family and close friends.
It may be because hes hiding something, or simply he dosnt want to get him or his family involved.

However, a simple explanation for the name swap may be: he started at pickfords under the name of Cross since he was still under the auspices of his step dad then. And so at work he goes by cross, and since this all had to do with him on his way to work, (or maybe the police inquired for him at Pickfords) Cross is simply what they all went with.

Agreed there may be very simple explanations. Any one of a hundred. Still, I'd like to know if there's a record of him giving the name 'Cross' at the inquest as OPPOSED to Lechmere.

That being said there is no denying he used Lechmere everywhere else on record and seems to use Cross only here-again another discrepancy that needs to be explained. And I do find it odd.

Well. There may be denying. Still looking for some confirmation that - other than what's in the Telegraph - that he gave the name Cross without mentioning Lechmere. I'm pretty sure that Paul didn't say his name was 'Baul'. So, I think it's worth asking. Remember, he gave is actual address. He gave his actual employer. It could be he gave his actual name.

[Abby Normal]

I have a question. I know that Christer isn't speaking to me. So, I'll ask the ether and hope for a reply. Much as been made of Charles Allen Lechmere's "giving his name" as 'Cross' at the Nichols Inquest. Cross voluntarily appeared at the inquest on it's second day, Monday, September 3. His name is reported in The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, as 'Chas. Andrew Cross.

As the official records of the inquest have been lost, we are left to rely upon these newpaper reports. My question is this. The Telegraph is clearly, in most cases, not relating verbatim testimony. Most of Cross' testimony is - like much of the testimony - not a first person account. His testimony is summarized for the reader. His testimony that is reported as direct testimony is obvious:

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
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.

The rest of the Cross testimony is reported along these lines:

He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.

We are now dealing with the conclusion - presented in Christer's documentary and elsewhere - that features prominently the "fact" that Lechmere gave his name as "Cross" at the inquest and this is the only time that he'd ever given that name in more than 100 dealings with "authority". An interesting point. However, how can anyone be certain that Lechmere was not asked if he was known by any other names and cited 'Cross' and that the Telegraph simply either simply confused the names or decided to use the name 'Cross' in its reporting of his testimony rather than Lechmere?

Clearly we have some issues with the spelling of names reported in the Telegraph:

Paul is Baul
Spratling is Spratley
Purkiss is Purkess
Thain is Thail
Mulshaw is Malshaw

One wonders if the reporter didn't say, "Lech...what? What did he say? Wait...what was the other name he gave? Cross. That's easier. I'll go with that. What's his middle name? I can't remember....startes with a 'A'....Andrew sounds about right."

It also seems that either the witness were not asked to spell their names or the reporter(s) simply didn't care about spelling.

Hi Patrick

So, I'll ask the ether and hope for a reply

HAHA! Now that's funny!

That scenario might be possible. However, I do detect a certain amount of Lech not wanting to give as much personal info about himself as possible. It seems to me he might be trying to hide all this from family and close friends.
It may be because hes hiding something, or simply he dosnt want to get him or his family involved.

However, a simple explanation for the name swap may be: he started at pickfords under the name of Cross since he was still under the auspices of his step dad then. And so at work he goes by cross, and since this all had to do with him on his way to work, (or maybe the police inquired for him at Pickfords) Cross is simply what they all went with.

That being said there is no denying he used Lechmere everywhere else on record and seems to use Cross only here-again another discrepancy that needs to be explained. And I do find it odd.

[Patrick S]

I have a question. I know that Christer isn't speaking to me. So, I'll ask the ether and hope for a reply. Much as been made of Charles Allen Lechmere's "giving his name" as 'Cross' at the Nichols Inquest. Cross voluntarily appeared at the inquest on it's second day, Monday, September 3. His name is reported in The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 4, 1888, as 'Chas. Andrew Cross.

As the official records of the inquest have been lost, we are left to rely upon these newpaper reports. My question is this. The Telegraph is clearly, in most cases, not relating verbatim testimony. Most of Cross' testimony is - like much of the testimony - not a first person account. His testimony is summarized for the reader. His testimony that is reported as direct testimony is obvious:

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?
Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.
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.

The rest of the Cross testimony is reported along these lines:

He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from.

We are now dealing with the conclusion - presented in Christer's documentary and elsewhere - that features prominently the "fact" that Lechmere gave his name as "Cross" at the inquest and this is the only time that he'd ever given that name in more than 100 dealings with "authority". An interesting point. However, how can anyone be certain that Lechmere was not asked if he was known by any other names and cited 'Cross' and that the Telegraph simply either simply confused the names or decided to use the name 'Cross' in its reporting of his testimony rather than Lechmere?

Clearly we have some issues with the spelling of names reported in the Telegraph:

Paul is Baul
Spratling is Spratley
Purkiss is Purkess
Thain is Thail
Mulshaw is Malshaw

One wonders if the reporter didn't say, "Lech...what? What did he say? Wait...what was the other name he gave? Cross. That's easier. I'll go with that. What's his middle name? I can't remember....startes with a 'A'....Andrew sounds about right."

It also seems that either the witness were not asked to spell their names or the reporter(s) simply didn't care about spelling.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

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

If you look at what people reported to the inquest, you'll see Neil had to note whether he saw anybody in his report. Thain had to note whether he saw anybody. The various watchmen from all around the area on that night were specifically asked if they saw or heard anything. The horse slaughterers were asked if the saw or heard anything. Door to door knock ups were instituted to see if ANYBODY saw or heard anything.

Basic 101 of police investigation is to ask EVERY witness if they saw any thing. It seems inconceivable to me that Mizen would not be asked the same question.

The first obvious question for an experienced officer like Neil to ask, 20 years service at that point, would be, "Did you pass anybody on you way here?"

Add to that, all the policemen Mizen came into contact with were from J Division and would have known each other, the obvious question to Mizen would be, "What are you doing here?" To which Mizen would have replied ... what?

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

No, something is seriously amiss here.

Hi Dr. S
Thank you for the concise and well thought out reply. I totally see your point.
However, it was a total cluster F that morning, with all the witnesses involved, all the comings and goings etc. If Mizen thought Lech told him there was a PC who needed his help I could see where the confusion was and why he might have not mentioned the Carmen before the inquest. He might have thought they were already a known quantity.

But what we DO have is a PC on record under oath saying in no uncertain terms-Lech told me there was another PC needing my help.

Now the easiest explanation, is that it was a misunderstanding, because when he does get there-there is a PC needing his help! Mizen simply misunderstood.

NOt Lied. Not trying to cover his arse. misunderstood.
Why when there is a discrepancy-oh its the police lied. I don't get it I really don't.

It reminds me of the apron fiasco when the PC must of lied (or missed it), simply because people cant fathom a serial killer would wait an hour or so before dropping a clue somewhere.

Cop said this. witness said that. Its why no one at the time made a big deal out of it at the inquest-because at the time it WAS NO big deal. Just a misunderstanding.

Police at the time never even considered Lech a suspect-or the type of man who could even be a suspect. However, looking at it with fresh eyes, and a ton of research, and a going over lech with a fine toothed comb-its yet another discrepencey. Yes possibly one of the weaker aspects (IMHO) of the lech case, but yet another discrepancy that has to be explained away. Something that does NOT need to be done in the majority of "suspects".

Look, I think Lech is a weak suspect. I think they are all weak-some just less weak than others.

But it gets tiresome when the "police lied" mantra keeps being brought up-when there is NO evidence they did on any particular point-and when there is another, usually more logical answer.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

If you look at what people reported to the inquest, you'll see Neil had to note whether he saw anybody in his report. Thain had to note whether he saw anybody.

"Had to note"? What do you mean, had to note? Of course the PC:s had a duty to take note of what they experienced. Not necessarily in writing, though.

The various watchmen from all around the area on that night were specifically asked if they saw or heard anything. The horse slaughterers were asked if the saw or heard anything. Door to door knock ups were instituted to see if ANYBODY saw or heard anything.

The door to door knock ups were very modest, it would seem. But overall, yes, the PC:s and watchmen were asked if they had seen anybody leaving Buckd Row to evoke attention.

Basic 101 of police investigation is to ask EVERY witness if they saw any thing. It seems inconceivable to me that Mizen would not be asked the same question.

Not to worry, Dust - he WAS doubtlessly asked, if he could be reached. And there is nothing to sugest he couldn´t.

The first obvious question for an experienced officer like Neil to ask, 20 years service at that point, would be, "Did you pass anybody on you way here?"

Ah - the "I-know-exactly-what-Neil-must-have-said" thing again; Conjure up something that Neil could have said that will make you right, and the battle is won.
If it was only that easy!
I could of course say that Neil having so many years in the trade, would bank on his colleague informing him if there had met a ybody on his way without Neil having to ask.
But why would I join this type of charade?

Add to that, all the policemen Mizen came into contact with were from J Division and would have known each other, the obvious question to Mizen would be, "What are you doing here?" To which Mizen would have replied ... what?

More of the same. When Mizen arrived at Browns there WERE no other PC:s, so who should ask? And Neil supposedly knew that he himself had called upon Mizen with his lamp.
When Mizen returned, it would have been pretty obvious what he did there: he brought the ambulance. And if he was asked WHY he had fetched it, he would perhaps answer "Because your colleague asked me to".

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

Neil says that he found the body himself. That is in accordance with the carmen not finding the body. And that was exactly what Mizen would have thought.

Neil said that he was not guided to the body by two men. That is in accordance with the carmen not finding the body. And that was exactly what Mizen would have thought.

If Neil has said that he WAS directed to the body by two men, THEN there would have been reason for Mizen to react.

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Neil denies that he was guided to the body by two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

The police did NOT believe Pauls story. It was denied by Neil, for instance.
To begin with, neither of us knows if Mizen ever read the article. If he did, he would think "But that is not correct, the carman did not find the body" - and then he would find that his colleagues were of the exact same meaning.

It is not until we have a situation where it is accepted that the carmen, and NOT Neil were the finders of the body, that Mizen would have been faced with something that did not dovetail with his own experience.

No, something is seriously amiss here.

Yes, but what could it be? Insight? Afterthought? Knowledge?

[Fisherman]

drstrange169: Why did I leave out Dr Llewellyn from my post?

That is a very good question. You specifically warned about picking only selected pieces of evidence. Leaving Llewellyn out rhymes very badly with that commendable intent.

My post dealt exclusively with the best evidence available, sworn testimony and police files, not speculation, interviews known to be unreliable and conspiracy theories.

No, it did not. Llewellyns testimony is testimony from the perhaps most important man in the investigation. Furthermore, he is more likely to be in possession of a timepiece than the rest of the people in the drama.
Saying that you chose the best evidence is simply ridiculous, since you know quite well that it is impossible to find consensus about which sources are the "best". Leaving out one or more sources will inevitably lead to accusations of cherrypicking not least if the sources you leave out are - surprise! - the ones that are not in accordance with the story you are trying to sell.

History has not treated Dr Llewellyn well.

That depends on the sources we use, once again. You could equally say that history hads not treated Bond well, history has not treated Phillips well, history has not treated Killeen well etcetera. "History" in this case is equivalent to "Ripperology", and I would NEVER buy a used car from Ripperology.

The scant evidence we have about him makes him appear incompetent.

No, it does not. There are, though, many who want him to look bad, since he is not in accordance with what they think. There is a word for such things.

Fish raises the spectre of a mythical 13 minute gap between Thain and Llewellyn. Let's look at what we REALLY know, or to be precise, that we don't know.

We don't know when Thain left the body to fetch the doctor. 3:46? 47? 48? 40? 50?

10? 15? What we can do is to fit the pieces together in a manner that makes sense. We cannot know exactly when he left, but why would we allow for ridiculous suggestions on account of that?

We don't know if Thain went to the slaughters or not. If he did, how long was he there? 1 minute? Two? three?

We don´t know if he went to the slaughterers or not? Really? Could you then please explain this snippet from the Daily Telegraph:

"Police-constable John Thail stated that the nearest point on his beat to Buck's-row was Brady-street. He passed the end every thirty minutes on the Thursday night, and nothing attracted his attention until 3.45 a.m., when he was signalled by the flash of the lantern of another constable (Neale). He went to him, and found Neale standing by the body of the deceased, and witness was despatched for a doctor. About ten minutes after he had fetched the surgeon he saw two workmen standing with Neale. He did not know who they were. The body was taken to the mortuary, and witnessed remained on the spot. Witness searched Essex Wharf, the Great Eastern Railway arches, the East London Railway line, and the District Railway as far as Thames-street, and detected no marks of blood or anything of a suspicious character.

By the Jury: When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed. Another constable had taken my cape there."

But of course you are correct. "We" (as in "the two of us") didn´t know.

We don't know how long Thain knocked on the door before it was answered. Given the late hour, obviously the occupants would have been asleep. Thirty seconds? One minute? Two?

Nine? Eleven?

On to Llewellyn.

What time did he say Thain arrived? Most papers were vague, around 4 o'clock. Some, like the Evening Post were specific, "five to four".

Most sources say around 4. Some say slightly before 4. The Evening Post says 5 to 4. If anybody could arrive at another conclusion from this than Thain having arrived in the last minutes leading up to 4 AM, I´d be interested to hear how it was done.

Who answered the door? was it a servant or, as in Blackwell's case his assistant?

We only know that he said that "he was called up by a policeman with whom he went to Buck's row", so there is no mentioning of any servant. He specifically says that the PC called him up. I am not the type of person who would argue that this rules out a servant, however, but I know of a few people who would use a quote like this in that exact manner...
In the end, it matters not, since there are other timings given in a number of sources that provide the solution to the errand.

When did Llewellyn note the time? As he got out of bed? Clocks in bedrooms are common now but back in Victorian times not so common. Did he note the time after he got dressed and got down stairs? How long was that? Five minutes? four? three?
Unfortunately, Llewellyn's timing woes don't end there. He claims the victim was alive about a half hour before his arrival but he doesn't say when he arrived, rendering his estimate useless.

Useless? No. There is not a single thing he says that is useless. And in the end, although there will always be some uncertainty about the timings, it is quite possible to lay the puzzle and get an overall understanding. There are timings that help us along the way, and there is factual information that rules things in and out. And that factual information is all-important to have a grasp of.

If we don´t have that grasp, "we" will get lost, to a smaller or larger extent. I can present a schedule for LLewellyn that will not be far off the mark. I won´t do so, however, for reasons that should be pretty obvious.

[drstrange169]

Dr Llewllyn

Why did I leave out Dr Llewellyn from my post?

My post dealt exclusively with the best evidence available, sworn testimony and police files, not speculation, interviews known to be unreliable and conspiracy theories.

History has not treated Dr Llewellyn well. The scant evidence we have about him makes him appear incompetent. If we could see his full reports and full testimony he might come out looking better, but as it is, that's not the case.

Fish raises the spectre of a mythical 13 minute gap between Thain and Llewellyn. Let's look at what we REALLY know, or to be precise, that we don't know.

We don't know when Thain left the body to fetch the doctor. 3:46? 47? 48? 40? 50?

We don't know if Thain went to the slaughters or not. If he did, how long was he there? 1 minute? Two? three?

We don't know how long Thain knocked on the door before it was answered. Given the late hour, obviously the occupants would have been asleep. Thirty seconds? One minute? Two?

On to Llewellyn.

What time did he say Thain arrived? Most papers were vague, around 4 o'clock. Some, like the Evening Post were specific, "five to four".

Who answered the door? was it a servant or, as in Blackwell's case his assistant?
When did Llewellyn note the time? As he got out of bed? Clocks in bedrooms are common now but back in Victorian times not so common. Did he note the time after he got dressed and got down stairs? How long was that? Five minutes? four? three?
Unfortunately, Llewellyn's timing woes don't end there. He claims the victim was alive about a half hour before his arrival but he doesn't say when he arrived, rendering his estimate useless.

[GUT]

Never said you did ... Others do, however.

You need to be more specific, Gut. How have I earned the right to do what, precisely?

Try following along, Christer. It's not hard. YOU said those calling 'Mizen' a liar have not earned the right to do so. So, the question to you was: How have you earned the right to call PAUL a liar?

Remember, we were all recently brought up to speed on the Mizen Scam....and it seems that now, in order for this thing to work out for you, Paul must now be a police-grudge-holding-glory-hogging liar.

To quote Hugh Laurie's Dr. Gregory House, "Everyone lies." Especially when given a good enough reason reason and opportunity.

MIZEN'S REASON FOR LYING was simple. He lied to protect himself from scrutiny after he failed to act as he knew that both his superiors and the public would have expected him to have acted once he'd been informed of a woman lying in Buck's Row.

Paul stated that he told Mizen that Nichols was likely dead. Cross stated that he told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. Paul tells us that he continued knocking up and went on to react with outrage at Mizen's nonchalance. Cross said that he told Mizen that she was either drunk or dead but that, "for my part, I think she's dead'. He tells us that Mizen said, "All right", and walked on.

Now, I realize that in your scenario these two are not to be believed because Paul is lying and Cross was Jack the Ripper. Somehow, to you, this seems the more elegant solution to what should seem obvious: Mizen was not honest about his interaction with Cross and Paul in order to protect his actions after the fact from scrutiny. He began with a.....

LIE OF OMISSION. After being told that a woman, likely dead, was lying in Buck's Row he continued knocking up. What he himself reports when he arrived at the body supports the fact that he continued knocking up beyond JUST the house he was at when told of the body (which was what he inferred at the inquest - he stated that he 'continued knocking up where I was....'. According to Mizen himself he sees Neil alone the body. This means that Neil has found the body, inspected the body, found the wounds, summoned Thain, dispatched Thain to get Llewellyn.

If we look outside Mizen's testimony we see that the timing of his arrival may have been closer to 4:15am. 30 minutes after he spoke to Paul and Cross. If the slaughterman were with Neil when Mizen arrived in Buck's Row then the later time is accurate. The workers stated and Thain's testimony agrees: They went to view the body after being told of it, by Thain, around 4:15, when he spoke to them as he stopped by to retreive his cape.

Regardless, Mizen did not tell Neil about Cross and Paul finding the body. Did not mention it in Buck's Row at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at the mortuary at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at all Friday or Saturday at all, to anyone. Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone found the body. This testimony stood, unchallenged. No mention of Paul or Cross. Mizen is mentioned, not by name, no mention of his speaking with two men in Baker's Row. Neil states he saw another PC in Baker's Row and dispatched him to get an ambulance.

So, clearly we have Mizen, knowing that his inaction after being told of the body in Buck's Row, not informing his superiors, his colleagues, or the press of his enounter in Baker's Row. Then, Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's on Sunday. This, to quote Christer's internationally sent documentary, was a bombshell. But not to Cross, as he believes. To Mizen and the police. This led Mizen to tell a few.....

OUTRIGHT LIES in order to avoind embarrassment for himself and the police.

He claimes that Paul and Cross said a woman was lying in Buck's Row and that no one stated that she may be dead. Both Cross and Paul disagree on this point. Further, Mizen goes on to state that one of the men stated that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. This could have been a misunderstanding on Mizen's part. But, it's likely just more misinformation to avoid embarrassment. In the end, Mizen and the and his superiors both likely realized that even had he run to Buck's Row immediately, the outcome would not have changed: Nichols would still be dead. The killer would not have been caught. No new evidence would have been found. The only thing that would have been achieved was more embarrassment would have been come upon the police and Mizen. As has been stated, Mizen was a veteran cop with a good record. There was no need to tarnish his record because he had a natural reaction. Put yourself in his position. Tabram was killed almost two months prior. His guard was likely down to some extent. Its likely that - in his many years of service - he had seen far more drunk people lying on the ground than murder victims. Thus, we have a less than frantic reaction to Paul's and Cross' report.

Obviously this a less cynical and sinister view than the "Everyone is lying except Mizen' angle. I don't view Mizen negatively. I'd likely have had a similar reaction. Its only in hindsight that his actions look rather bad. And as we know, hindsight, crystal balls, things of that sort..they play a big role in Crossmere and Paul the Liar.

Thanks Patrick, exactly what I was referring to.

[GUT]

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

No, something is seriously amiss here.

Where is the like button.

It just doesn't pass the sniff test (or pub test) as the politicians keep saying here

[drstrange169]

Hello Abby,

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

If you look at what people reported to the inquest, you'll see Neil had to note whether he saw anybody in his report. Thain had to note whether he saw anybody. The various watchmen from all around the area on that night were specifically asked if they saw or heard anything. The horse slaughterers were asked if the saw or heard anything. Door to door knock ups were instituted to see if ANYBODY saw or heard anything.

Basic 101 of police investigation is to ask EVERY witness if they saw any thing. It seems inconceivable to me that Mizen would not be asked the same question.

The first obvious question for an experienced officer like Neil to ask, 20 years service at that point, would be, "Did you pass anybody on you way here?"

Add to that, all the policemen Mizen came into contact with were from J Division and would have known each other, the obvious question to Mizen would be, "What are you doing here?" To which Mizen would have replied ... what?

Moving on to the daytime, Neil tells the inquest he was alone and Mizen still does not correct him?

That day, stories about two men being around the crime scene start surfacing, Neil flatly denies the story and still Mizen doesn't correct the situation. In fact quite the opposite he is reported as flatly denying seeing two men.

Sunday morning the biggest selling Sunday newspaper features Paul's story and still Mizen says nothing?

No, something is seriously amiss here.

[Patrick S]

Never said you did ... Others do, however.

You need to be more specific, Gut. How have I earned the right to do what, precisely?

Try following along, Christer. It's not hard. YOU said those calling 'Mizen' a liar have not earned the right to do so. So, the question to you was: How have you earned the right to call PAUL a liar?

Remember, we were all recently brought up to speed on the Mizen Scam....and it seems that now, in order for this thing to work out for you, Paul must now be a police-grudge-holding-glory-hogging liar.

To quote Hugh Laurie's Dr. Gregory House, "Everyone lies." Especially when given a good enough reason reason and opportunity.

MIZEN'S REASON FOR LYING was simple. He lied to protect himself from scrutiny after he failed to act as he knew that both his superiors and the public would have expected him to have acted once he'd been informed of a woman lying in Buck's Row.

Paul stated that he told Mizen that Nichols was likely dead. Cross stated that he told Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. Paul tells us that he continued knocking up and went on to react with outrage at Mizen's nonchalance. Cross said that he told Mizen that she was either drunk or dead but that, "for my part, I think she's dead'. He tells us that Mizen said, "All right", and walked on.

Now, I realize that in your scenario these two are not to be believed because Paul is lying and Cross was Jack the Ripper. Somehow, to you, this seems the more elegant solution to what should seem obvious: Mizen was not honest about his interaction with Cross and Paul in order to protect his actions after the fact from scrutiny. He began with a.....

LIE OF OMISSION. After being told that a woman, likely dead, was lying in Buck's Row he continued knocking up. What he himself reports when he arrived at the body supports the fact that he continued knocking up beyond JUST the house he was at when told of the body (which was what he inferred at the inquest - he stated that he 'continued knocking up where I was....'. According to Mizen himself he sees Neil alone the body. This means that Neil has found the body, inspected the body, found the wounds, summoned Thain, dispatched Thain to get Llewellyn.

If we look outside Mizen's testimony we see that the timing of his arrival may have been closer to 4:15am. 30 minutes after he spoke to Paul and Cross. If the slaughterman were with Neil when Mizen arrived in Buck's Row then the later time is accurate. The workers stated and Thain's testimony agrees: They went to view the body after being told of it, by Thain, around 4:15, when he spoke to them as he stopped by to retreive his cape.

Regardless, Mizen did not tell Neil about Cross and Paul finding the body. Did not mention it in Buck's Row at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at the mortuary at all, to anyone. Didn't mention it at all Friday or Saturday at all, to anyone. Neil was allowed to testify that he and he alone found the body. This testimony stood, unchallenged. No mention of Paul or Cross. Mizen is mentioned, not by name, no mention of his speaking with two men in Baker's Row. Neil states he saw another PC in Baker's Row and dispatched him to get an ambulance.

So, clearly we have Mizen, knowing that his inaction after being told of the body in Buck's Row, not informing his superiors, his colleagues, or the press of his enounter in Baker's Row. Then, Paul's interview was published in Lloyd's on Sunday. This, to quote Christer's internationally sent documentary, was a bombshell. But not to Cross, as he believes. To Mizen and the police. This led Mizen to tell a few.....

OUTRIGHT LIES in order to avoind embarrassment for himself and the police.

He claimes that Paul and Cross said a woman was lying in Buck's Row and that no one stated that she may be dead. Both Cross and Paul disagree on this point. Further, Mizen goes on to state that one of the men stated that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row. This could have been a misunderstanding on Mizen's part. But, it's likely just more misinformation to avoid embarrassment. In the end, Mizen and the and his superiors both likely realized that even had he run to Buck's Row immediately, the outcome would not have changed: Nichols would still be dead. The killer would not have been caught. No new evidence would have been found. The only thing that would have been achieved was more embarrassment would have been come upon the police and Mizen. As has been stated, Mizen was a veteran cop with a good record. There was no need to tarnish his record because he had a natural reaction. Put yourself in his position. Tabram was killed almost two months prior. His guard was likely down to some extent. Its likely that - in his many years of service - he had seen far more drunk people lying on the ground than murder victims. Thus, we have a less than frantic reaction to Paul's and Cross' report.

Obviously this a less cynical and sinister view than the "Everyone is lying except Mizen' angle. I don't view Mizen negatively. I'd likely have had a similar reaction. Its only in hindsight that his actions look rather bad. And as we know, hindsight, crystal balls, things of that sort..they play a big role in Crossmere and Paul the Liar.

[Fisherman]

Haven't said he was.

But you seem to throw the terms around a bit in relation to Paul, and how have you earned the right to that?

Never said you did ... Others do, however.

You need to be more specific, Gut. How have I earned the right to do what, precisely?

[GUT]

In my post to Gut, the last sentence should read:

None of those who say that Mizen must have been the liar have earned the right to use those terms, simple as that.

Haven't said he was.

But you seem to throw the terms around a bit in relation to Paul, and how have you earned the right to that?

[Fisherman]

In my post to Gut, the last sentence should read:

None of those who say that Mizen must have been the liar have earned the right to use those terms, simple as that.

[Fisherman]

To me the chance of Cross being the killer of Nichols is slim indeed,nothing of an incriminating manner can be levelled against him.

Not that you are correct, but how about Hutchinson, Harry - is he a better suspect...? I believe you favour him. Is that because of all the incriminating evidence pointing in his direction...?