Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[caz]

GUT: Why would he become a suspect by not attending the inquest?

Because he would represent an anonymous man who had been found alone, standing close to where Nichols corpse lay, still bleeding. And who hda subsequently disappeared.

If asked "Well I told Mizen all about it I figured if I was needed he'd contact me".

He would still be an anonymous man who had been found alone, standing close to where Nichols corpse lay, still bleeding. And who hda subsequently disappeared.

And how would Mizen be able to ask him anything? He did not have name or address or working place, and Lechmere would know that. You donīt predispose that you will be sought out if needed in such a case.

This is getting hilarious. Fish, you seem to be arguing against yourself now.

How indeed would Mizen be able to ask him anything, with no name, address or workplace? You've put the lid on it yourself by arguing that this otherwise anonymous man could have effectively disappeared, by deliberately giving Mizen no way of tracing him.

If the chances of anyone doing so after that were next to none, while the chances of Mizen or Paul being able (or willing) to positively identify him as the same man, if Lechmere denied it, were absolute zero, it would never get to the stage where Mizen could ask him anything.

Equally, having effectively disappeared without trace (like Blotchy, or other anonymous persons of interest who were never identified and eliminated), thanks to his own calculated efforts, why would he unravel what he had just taken great pains to knit, by subjecting himself to all the questions a policeman's little heart could desire to ask?

If the only answer is that he was going slightly mad, like Freddie Mercury, and knitting with only one needle, I don't want to know.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Okay, I`ll go back and have a look at the newspapers again -I didn`t realise they had dissed the idea of two carmen.

.

Hereīs the relevant bit, from the Daily News of the 3;rd. Other papers had it too:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. 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. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

[Patrick S]

This is getting hilarious. Fish, you seem to be arguing against yourself now.

How indeed would Mizen be able to ask him anything, with no name, address or workplace? You've put the lid on it yourself by arguing that this otherwise anonymous man could have effectively disappeared, by deliberately giving Mizen no way of tracing him.

If the chances of anyone doing so after that were next to none, while the chances of Mizen or Paul being able (or willing) to positively identify him as the same man, if Lechmere denied it, were absolute zero, it would never get to the stage where Mizen could ask him anything.

Equally, having effectively disappeared without trace (like Blotchy, or other anonymous persons of interest who were never identified and eliminated), thanks to his own calculated efforts, why would he unravel what he had just taken great pains to knit, by subjecting himself to all the questions a policeman's little heart could desire to ask?

If the only answer is that he was going slightly mad, like Freddie Mercury, and knitting with only one needle, I don't want to know.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi, caz. I'm glad you brought up 'Blotchy'. I began thinking the same thing upon reading Christer's bizzare ramblings on this thread (I share your confusion, by the way). I wonder why Elizabeth Long's shabby, genteel foreigner didn't come forward of his own accord to employ Lechmere's genius ruse to throw the authories off the scent? As has been shown, SEEKING out the police is the best way to avoid accusation and arrest. Just as asking a stranger to come view the body of the woman you - seconds before - nearly decapitated is the best way to keep secret your life as a psychopath.

Equally naive were Schwartz's two men in Berner Street. We still wonder about these two. What were they about? In the end, they played it all wrong, didn't they? Popping up a few days later at the inquest would have been the thing to do! That would have put this whole thing to bed.

What of Lawende's man outside Church Passage? If the man he saw speaking to Eddowes ten minutes before she was found cut up like "a pig in the market" just yards from that spot had just popped in the local police station, he'd have thrown them off the scent and likely gotten away with murder.....wait.....that doesn't make any sense. If he killed Eddowes...he DID get away with murder....hmmmmm....Well. I guess he just got lucky. Everyone knows, as did Lechmere, the best thing to do is ask people to come see your victims and then recruit people to go find the cops with you. And if the police don't care to get your name ("fake" or otherwise), address, employer, etc.....well...the best thing to do swing by the station and give it to them!

Come on, caz. This is serial killer 101.

[GUT]

Hereīs the relevant bit, from the Daily News of the 3;rd. Other papers had it too:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. 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. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

How does this Diss Paul, Paul never claims to have called Neil.

[Fisherman]

caz: Sigh, do you deliberately misunderstand, or are you genuinely incapable of grasping what 'covering all the bases' implies?

Not at all. It is all very easy to understand what you are suggesting, Caz. Itīs just that I donīt think it is a very useful suggestion.

I donīt expect that we will find stastistics to help us, but I feel very confident that people in the situation you suggested would not obsure their names and take the risk that the police would check them out. It would spell disaster.

There is a twist here, that is interesting, though: Are you saying that I am probably right in speculating that he never mentioned his address before the inquest? Because if he DID, he would NOT be "covering all bases", would he?

If the killer believes this witness when he says he didn't see or hear anyone, fine. The killer can breathe a sigh of relief that he hasn't risked identification. But what about the witness? It would have been a close thing, and for all Lechmere knew, the killer could now be seething somewhere about being disturbed in his work and hell bent on teaching the intruder - or the intruder's family - a lesson nobody would forget. Why would Lechmere have taken the slightest risk of his wife or children becoming targets for a highly dangerous madman's revenge, if he could help to avoid it by using a surname that was not theirs? It's a simple enough concept, surely?

Not really. It is a bit convoluted. And that is because, as I said before, people who are intimidated into "helping" criminals will normally do it by not giving the criminals away. The fewest would think, I believe, "It will probably not help if I keep my mouth shut, the killer will probably come after me anyway". Keeping your mouth shut is what soleves the problem.

Hereīs a story and a half:

When Frank Gusenberg lay dying on the floor after the Valentineīs Day massacre in the twenties, his body pieced by more than forty gunshot wounds, a detective asked him: "Sweet Jesus, Frank, they never gave you a chance. Who was it that shot?"
Gusenberg answered: "There was nobody who shot" - and died".

Not that it is comparable, but it is a nice story. And he did shield the perpetrators.

Circular. You are presuming his guilt again, while my scenario does not.

Donīt be daft, Caz. You know that the scenario must be tried from my angle too.

Lechmere can call himself Charles Allen Cross, Charles Allen Terrified, Charles Allen Gay or Charles Allen Bleeding-Miserable if he likes, while trying to protect his family from an unhinged killer's revenge. He can't hang for it.

That depends on the rest of the implications. Many an innocent person have hung on account of the police thinking they smell a rat. Or am I wrong?

Your Mizen scam, the bleeding issues and so on - he can't hang for any of it because for each 'issue' you have with him, there is at least one innocent alternative explanation, providing him with more reasonable doubt than you can shake a very sticky stick at. With no blood on his hands, literally or figuratively, the man has nothing to fear from the bleeding issues, from Mizen's testimony, nor from using the name Cross.

That would have been up to the jury to decide. And Scobie said that there was a prima faciae case suggesting that he was the killer. Suggesting, Caz - that is enough to convict at times. And Scobie predisposed that the jury would not like him since he acted suspiciously. SO much for your innocent alternatives.
As you know, given the choice of your legal expertise and Scobies, well ...

Conversely, as you rather eloquently put it yourself, Lechmere would indeed have been at risk of the police finding out about the name change if Pickfords only knew him as Lechmere, and finding himself in an extremely awkward position, if he was the killer and not just a witness. So remind me once more why he would have taken this totally unnecessary risk of ending up on the gallows, when he could have walked away as Mr. Anonymous, with no suspicion attaching to him, and no evidence to attach any?

Nope. Backtrack. Itīs there.

Only to someone already so blinkered that he can't see past Lechmere as a killer with nothing and nobody to fear. But if it's the basic concept of witness intimidation that you find so very odd, tell that to whoever wrote the ripper letter of October 6th, threatening to 'finish' a witness and send his ears to his wife.

Itīs not the intimidation as such that would be weird or unexpected - it happens every day. I was referring to how you are cramming another killer in, who cut Nichols neck around ten minutes or so before Mizen saw here, and who managed to flee unseen and unheard - and who left a carman behind who happened to get his own name wrong but his address right, and who for some reason disagreed with the police about a good number of things when it comes to what was said. And who was neither heard nor seen by a fellow carman who walked 30 yards behind him down a silent street. And who claimed he left home at 3.30, while being in Bucks Row at 3.45, a street that he should have left behind at 3.38. And he was late, to boot.

That is odd.

By the way, if I am correct - am I still blinkered then?

[Fisherman]

How does this Diss Paul, Paul never claims to have called Neil.

You are the legal man, you figure it out.

Hereīs some slight help:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. 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. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

Can you wring this to an acceptance of Pauls statment in the Lloyds? Or does it tell us that to the police, Neil was the finder of the body? Let me know when you have thought it over.

[GUT]

You are the legal man, you figure it out.

Hereīs some slight help:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. 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. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

Can you wring this to an acceptance of Pauls statment in the Lloyds? Or does it tell us that to the police, Neil was the finder of the body? Let me know when you have thought it over.

What it tells me is that Mizen(on whom you place so much credence) hand reported his contact.

Clearly Paul talks to the paper about an unnamed capper ho went in knocking up, Neil tals of finding a body, and everyone thinks Paul's copper is Neil.

[Fisherman]

What it tells me is that Mizen(on whom you place so much credence) hand reported his contact.

Clearly Paul talks to the paper about an unnamed capper ho went in knocking up, Neil tals of finding a body, and everyone thinks Paul's copper is Neil.

How does that have an impact on whether Paul was believed or not?


Waht exactly do you mean by saying that Mizen "hand reported" his contact? I have never seen the expression before, so you will need to help me out.

By the way, the credence I put in Mizen is not nearly as odd as the distrust many others put in a PC with an excellent service record...

[Patrick S]

Hereīs the relevant bit, from the Daily News of the 3;rd. Other papers had it too:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. 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. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

All this does is undermine your point. Neil's statement here, along with his statement at the inquest demonstrates that one person is lying. It most certainly is not Charles Lechmere. It is - as you likely know, Christer - PC Jonas Mizen.

His lies (plural) are, obviously, far less sinister and far less profitable than the series of lies you have Lechmere and his unwitting, lying, glory-hogging, police-hating accomplice Robert Paul telling. Futher, his lies are obvious and demonstrable and require no "circular logic", mind-reading, crystal balls, inexplicable behavior, or complex "scams" to explain.

At the Nichols' Inquest Mizen told several lies: He claimed that the "carman" told him that he was wanted in Buck's Row by another policeman. Paul and Lechmere do not agree on this point. Over the years I've read you assert that Paul was gone by the time Lechmere, alone, spoke with Mizen, or that he was simply out of earshot. Now, he's a liar. Yet, in order to make him a liar you must make Paul a dupe and assign to him invented motivations (he hated the police). I don't have to do that with Mizen, as you KNOW and as I'll get to. The second lie Mizen told deals with what he was told about Nichols condition. Again, Lechmere and Paul agree: Mizen was told she was LIKELY dead. Mizen claims he was told only that she was "lying in Buck's Row". Mizen claimed that he continued "knocking up" where he was and went immeidately to Buck's Row. Paul stated that he continued "calling up", leading us to believe he continued knocking on doors beyond the house where he was when he got the news from Paul and Lechmere. Now, Paul's statement may be factually incorrect. He may have continued on to work and not known if Mizen continued knocking up beyond that one house. Alas, the lie that Mizen "told" that forced him to take the stand at the inquest to tell additional lies clearly indicates who was lying: Mizen. Further, it's VERY clear WHY he lied.

Mizen's first lie - the one he then followed with several more lies - was a lie of omission. He omitted very relevant information about a murder to obscure what he knew would be perceived by both the public and his EMPLOYERS (the Metropolitan Police) as his inappropriate response once he received information about a woman lying dead in Buck's Row. His lie of omission cannot be debated. Its easily demonstrable. Its clear. Its apparent.

Neil testified that he and he alone found the body. Neil stated in the interview you provide that he and he alone found the body. He was allowed to state these things as fact because he and his superiors viewed them as fact since Mizen had told exactly NO ONE that he'd spoken to two men in Baker's Row. He didn't mention it to Neil at the scene. Didn't mention to anyone at the mortuary. Didn't tell his superiors. Didn't tell anyone. Even if he'd fallen victim to the "Mizen Scam", why not speak of it at all? It doesn't come up? Mizen doesn't bring it up? Even after Neil states on Saturday at the inquest that he found the body. He does not mention the two men he supposedly sent to fetch Mizen.

ONLY Paul's statment compells him speak. Only Paul's description of when and where he found the PC (inforation that tells his bosses that the PC in question was Jonas Mizen) prompts "honesty" from Mizen. THIS is very clear. And you likely KNOW it.

You have - in the past - played up outrage here. You've cited Mizen's record and his - um - Chrisitanity. Let's not forget, all of Lechmere's kids were baptised, as he was. Thus, he too was a Christian...as if that's some metric for measuring one's capacity to kill. But, I'm not condemning Mizen. I'm not canonizing him, either. I'm simply saying he tried to avoid getting in trouble at work. I'm not making him Jack the Ripper. I'm not making him the Torso Killer. I'm not making him a bad cop, a dirty pig, or cop on the take.

Its all very simple, Christer. And I believe you know that.

[Patrick S]

How does that have an impact on whether Paul was believed or not?


Waht exactly do you mean by saying that Mizen "hand reported" his contact? I have never seen the expression before, so you will need to help me out.

By the way, the credence I put in Mizen is not nearly as odd as the distrust many others put in a PC with an excellent service record...

You forgot to mentinon his Christianity.

[GUT]

How does that have an impact on whether Paul was believed or not?


Waht exactly do you mean by saying that Mizen "hand reported" his contact? I have never seen the expression before, so you will need to help me out.

By the way, the credence I put in Mizen is not nearly as odd as the distrust many others put in a PC with an excellent service record...

Darn auto correct at 4:00am "hadn't reported".

[Patrick S]

What it tells me is that Mizen(on whom you place so much credence) hand reported his contact.

Clearly Paul talks to the paper about an unnamed capper ho went in knocking up, Neil tals of finding a body, and everyone thinks Paul's copper is Neil.

What GUT was saying, Christer - as you KNOW (but you must always be boorish and rude) is that Mizen HADN'T reported the contact with Paul and Lechmere. Its a point I made in my post that you will read, stamp your feet, howl at the moon, and cry yourself to sleep over. You won't reply. But you may wet the bed, as you see the windfall you so desired begin to dissolve.

Mizen can keep his spotless record. He can keep his status as a Christian gentelman. But, he lied about Baker's Row, Christer. If you are ANY kind of researcher and journalist, you KNOW that. One needs not invent far-fetched, fanciful tales to tell that story.

By the way, I'll shut up and not debate any of your posts between now and April 8...provided you agree to debate me in Baltimore.

[GUT]

All this does is undermine your point. Neil's statement here, along with his statement at the inquest demonstrates that one person is lying. It most certainly is not Charles Lechmere. It is - as you likely know, Christer - PC Jonas Mizen.

His lies (plural) are, obviously, far less sinister and far less profitable than the series of lies you have Lechmere and his unwitting, lying, glory-hogging, police-hating accomplice Robert Paul telling. Futher, his lies are obvious and demonstrable and require no "circular logic", mind-reading, crystal balls, inexplicable behavior, or complex "scams" to explain.

At the Nichols' Inquest Mizen told several lies: He claimed that the "carman" told him that he was wanted in Buck's Row by another policeman. Paul and Lechmere do not agree on this point. Over the years I've read you assert that Paul was gone by the time Lechmere, alone, spoke with Mizen, or that he was simply out of earshot. Now, he's a liar. Yet, in order to make him a liar you must make Paul a dupe and assign to him invented motivations (he hated the police). I don't have to do that with Mizen, as you KNOW and as I'll get to. The second lie Mizen told deals with what he was told about Nichols condition. Again, Lechmere and Paul agree: Mizen was told she was LIKELY dead. Mizen claims he was told only that she was "lying in Buck's Row". Mizen claimed that he continued "knocking up" where he was and went immeidately to Buck's Row. Paul stated that he continued "calling up", leading us to believe he continued knocking on doors beyond the house where he was when he got the news from Paul and Lechmere. Now, Paul's statement may be factually incorrect. He may have continued on to work and not known if Mizen continued knocking up beyond that one house. Alas, the lie that Mizen "told" that forced him to take the stand at the inquest to tell additional lies clearly indicates who was lying: Mizen. Further, it's VERY clear WHY he lied.

Mizen's first lie - the one he then followed with several more lies - was a lie of omission. He omitted very relevant information about a murder to obscure what he knew would be perceived by both the public and his EMPLOYERS (the Metropolitan Police) as his inappropriate response once he received information about a woman lying dead in Buck's Row. His lie of omission cannot be debated. Its easily demonstrable. Its clear. Its apparent.

Neil testified that he and he alone found the body. Neil stated in the interview you provide that he and he alone found the body. He was allowed to state these things as fact because he and his superiors viewed them as fact since Mizen had told exactly NO ONE that he'd spoken to two men in Baker's Row. He didn't mention it to Neil at the scene. Didn't mention to anyone at the mortuary. Didn't tell his superiors. Didn't tell anyone. Even if he'd fallen victim to the "Mizen Scam", why not speak of it at all? It doesn't come up? Mizen doesn't bring it up? Even after Neil states on Saturday at the inquest that he found the body. He does not mention the two men he supposedly sent to fetch Mizen.

ONLY Paul's statment compells him speak. Only Paul's description of when and where he found the PC (inforation that tells his bosses that the PC in question was Jonas Mizen) prompts "honesty" from Mizen. THIS is very clear. And you likely KNOW it.

You have - in the past - played up outrage here. You've cited Mizen's record and his - um - Chrisitanity. Let's not forget, all of Lechmere's kids were baptised, as he was. Thus, he too was a Christian...as if that's some metric for measuring one's capacity to kill. But, I'm not condemning Mizen. I'm not canonizing him, either. I'm simply saying he tried to avoid getting in trouble at work. I'm not making him Jack the Ripper. I'm not making him the Torso Killer. I'm not making him a bad cop, a dirty pig, or cop on the take.

Its all very simple, Christer. And I believe you know that.

That's exactly what I'm saying the only explanation for Neil's statement is that everyone though Paul was talking about Neil until Mizen spoke up, pretty obviously after Paul's interview pin pointed which police officer it was.

[Fisherman]

Darn auto correct at 4:00am "hadn't reported".

Ah! Got it!

That will be true. But it nevertheless seems to apply that the police did not put any trust in Pauls story - they still have Neil as the finder of the body.

[Fisherman]

... the only explanation for Neil's statement is that everyone though Paul was talking about Neil until Mizen spoke up, pretty obviously after Paul's interview pin pointed which police officer it was.

Yes, everyone would originally have thought that Neil was the officer Robert Paul spoke of. That is why he was asked whether two men directed him to the body or not; Pauls story involved him and Lechmere finding the body and telling a PC about it, and the natural thing to assume would be that this PC was Neil, who claimed to have found the body.

However, if the police had accepted Robert Pauls story, as written in Lloyds Weekly on the 2:nd, they would not let Neil go on claiming that he was the finder.They would have known that the carmen were. And that is not what is says in the article. It instead claims that the body was found at 3.45 and that the finder was Neil.

And the wording "It is not true ..." shiuld have been followed by an explanation about what REALLY happened if the police had put faith in Robert Pauls story.

It can be added that Robert Paul did not come forward to the police - he was interviewed by the press only, and when the police finally realized that he was a material witness, they set out to look for him, AFTER the second inquest day.
Up til that stage, he had been of no interest, but after Lechmeres testimony,he was upgraded and sought after.