What happened to Lechmere......

[Clark]

Mizen must have written a report about the errand and handed it in to his superiors. In that report, if he had not been lied to, he must have written that he was guided to Bucks Row by a carman in company with a colleague.

Why "must have" written a report and why "must have" identified Cross as a carman?

Neil wasn't aware that Cross and Paul had discovered the body first. All he knew was that Mizen had shown up after he had come upon the body and he immediately sent Mizen for an ambulance. Mizen obviously hadn't told him that someone else had discovered the body first, because Neil was still under the impression that he had been the first on the scene at the time of the inquest. If Mizen had filed a report, why didn't Neil know at the inquest that Paul and Cross had discovered the body first?

And note that while Mizen said at the inquest that he had been notified by a carman of the body, that was after Paul had reported to the press that he, a carman, had notified Mizen. Neither Cross nor Paul are quoted as saying that they had identified themselves as carmen when Cross reported the body.

Note also that Cross said at the inquest that Paul had not left him until after he had talked to Mizen. Why would Paul have stood idly by as Cross lied to Mizen about a phantom policeman?

So why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?

Because Neil had told them that he was? Because there was no need for Mizen to file a written report because he hadn't discovered the body, didn't know whether or not Neil had found it first, and his only known involvement in the affair (until Paul's story appeared in the press and Cross gave his testimony at the inquest) was to have been sent by Neil to fetch an ambulance?

And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong? He would have been very much aware of this, unless he had been lied to. If that applies, he would have thought that Neil was truthful when claining to be the finder.

Again, how would Mizen know that Neil was wrong? Even if Cross hadn't said anything about a PC already being on the scene (and other than Mizen's word, there's no evidence that he did), by the time Mizen arrived at the scene Neil was already there and claiming to have found the body first. What was Mizen to say, "no, I knew about it first because two blokes showed up several minutes ago and told me about it, but I was too busy knocking people up to respond"? Better to accept Neil's word for it that he had discovered the body and go fetch an ambulance, as he was told to do.

[Fisherman]

Clar: Why "must have" written a report...

Because Mizen was part of a horrific case of murder where the polie were obliged to establish what had happened. There is effectively zero chance that Mizen did not write a report.

...why "must have" identified Cross as a carman?

I never postulated that. We are aware that Mizen THOUGHT that Lechmere was a carman, and that he had this confirmed at or just before the inquest. What I said was that Mizen would - if he was not lied to - be aware that the two men he had spoken to were the true finders of the body.

Neil wasn't aware that Cross and Paul had discovered the body first. All he knew was that Mizen had shown up after he had come upon the body and he immediately sent Mizen for an ambulance. Mizen obviously hadn't told him that someone else had discovered the body first, because Neil was still under the impression that he had been the first on the scene at the time of the inquest. If Mizen had filed a report, why didn't Neil know at the inquest that Paul and Cross had discovered the body first?

Exactly - and THAT was the question I asked you: why was Neil unaware of this?
I will answer the question for you: arguably because the report did not mention the carmen. And in what perspective would this be possible? Well, NOT if the carman had been truthful. But if he had lied, and if Mizen had just written "was summoned to murder spot at 3.45 by PC Neil", THEN it works, all of a sudden. Amazing, is it not...?

And note that while Mizen said at the inquest that he had been notified by a carman of the body, that was after Paul had reported to the press that he, a carman, had notified Mizen. Neither Cross nor Paul are quoted as saying that they had identified themselves as carmen when Cross reported the body.

See the above. At the inquest, Mizen knew that "Cross" was a carman, but on the murder night he did not. He only guessed that this was so, going from the appearance of the man.

Note also that Cross said at the inquest that Paul had not left him until after he had talked to Mizen. Why would Paul have stood idly by as Cross lied to Mizen about a phantom policeman?

He wouldnīt. Which is why I think he was out of earshot. Note how Mizen does not say that he spoke to two men, he says that ONE man came up to him and spoke, and that this man had another man "in company" (that could mean anything, distancewise). The only paper that says anything at all about where the men actually were, is The Star (or was it the Echo...?), speaking about Paul as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

Because Neil had told them that he was?

Neil had told whom what..???

Because there was no need for Mizen to file a written report because he hadn't discovered the body, didn't know whether or not Neil had found it first, and his only known involvement in the affair (until Paul's story appeared in the press and Cross gave his testimony at the inquest) was to have been sent by Neil to fetch an ambulance?

Nope. He was directly involved in the case, as one of three (or four, to be more exact, Kirby arrived too) PC:s. Mizen left his beat, he was at the murder site, he had a conversation with Neil, he helped lift the body onto the ambulance etcetera. Accordingly, he had no choice but to write that report and hand it in.

Again, how would Mizen know that Neil was wrong?

If he had been told by Lechmere that the carmen found the body - like Lechmere caimed he told Neil - he would know that Neil was number three in line, not number one.
Then again, Clark, if he had been lied to by Lechmere...

It is actually all very easy, once we look closer at it.

Even if Cross hadn't said anything about a PC already being on the scene (and other than Mizen's word, there's no evidence that he did), by the time Mizen arrived at the scene Neil was already there and claiming to have found the body first. What was Mizen to say, "no, I knew about it first because two blokes showed up several minutes ago and told me about it, but I was too busy knocking people up to respond"? Better to accept Neil's word for it that he had discovered the body and go fetch an ambulance, as he was told to do.

And be exposed as a liar when the carmen were found, corroborating each other that they had told Mizen that they were the finders? You may want to rethink that.
Please note how Mizen told the jury about the other policeman BEFORE Lechmere witnessed. Mizen would be acutely aware that Lechmere would deny what he said IF Mizen lied. And that Paul would be able to corroborate Lechmere later on, meaning that he would be exposed as a liar in an extremely high-profile murder case. Is it credible that he was THAT stupid?
Plus Mizen freely admitted at the inquest that he had finished a knocking-up errand before going to Bucks Row. Would he do that if he thought that the woman was alone and possibly dying, or would he do that if had been assured that there was a colleague in place and if he had only been told that the woman was lying flat on her back, implicating drunkenness?

Take your pick. Just donīt come back saying that there was never any report. We need to have some standards.

[Fisherman]

No problem, Christer.
I was looking for the duty sergeant and Inspector at Leman Street that night.

Okay, Jon - I donīt know if this has been established. If it has, I have missed out on it. Sorry!

[Jon Guy]

Okay, Jon - I donīt know if this has been established. If it has, I have missed out on it. Sorry!

No problem, Christer, I don`t think it has been established. I was just wondering if we knew.

[Pierre]

Clar: Why "must have" written a report...

Because Mizen was part of a horrific case of murder where the polie were obliged to establish what had happened. There is effectively zero chance that Mizen did not write a report.

...why "must have" identified Cross as a carman?

I never postulated that. We are aware that Mizen THOUGHT that Lechmere was a carman, and that he had this confirmed at or just before the inquest. What I said was that Mizen would - if he was not lied to - be aware that the two men he had spoken to were the true finders of the body.

Neil wasn't aware that Cross and Paul had discovered the body first. All he knew was that Mizen had shown up after he had come upon the body and he immediately sent Mizen for an ambulance. Mizen obviously hadn't told him that someone else had discovered the body first, because Neil was still under the impression that he had been the first on the scene at the time of the inquest. If Mizen had filed a report, why didn't Neil know at the inquest that Paul and Cross had discovered the body first?

Exactly - and THAT was the question I asked you: why was Neil unaware of this?
I will answer the question for you: arguably because the report did not mention the carmen. And in what perspective would this be possible? Well, NOT if the carman had been truthful. But if he had lied, and if Mizen had just written "was summoned to murder spot at 3.45 by PC Neil", THEN it works, all of a sudden. Amazing, is it not...?

And note that while Mizen said at the inquest that he had been notified by a carman of the body, that was after Paul had reported to the press that he, a carman, had notified Mizen. Neither Cross nor Paul are quoted as saying that they had identified themselves as carmen when Cross reported the body.

See the above. At the inquest, Mizen knew that "Cross" was a carman, but on the murder night he did not. He only guessed that this was so, going from the appearance of the man.

Note also that Cross said at the inquest that Paul had not left him until after he had talked to Mizen. Why would Paul have stood idly by as Cross lied to Mizen about a phantom policeman?

He wouldnīt. Which is why I think he was out of earshot. Note how Mizen does not say that he spoke to two men, he says that ONE man came up to him and spoke, and that this man had another man "in company" (that could mean anything, distancewise). The only paper that says anything at all about where the men actually were, is The Star (or was it the Echo...?), speaking about Paul as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

Because Neil had told them that he was?

Neil had told whom what..???

Because there was no need for Mizen to file a written report because he hadn't discovered the body, didn't know whether or not Neil had found it first, and his only known involvement in the affair (until Paul's story appeared in the press and Cross gave his testimony at the inquest) was to have been sent by Neil to fetch an ambulance?

Nope. He was directly involved in the case, as one of three (or four, to be more exact, Kirby arrived too) PC:s. Mizen left his beat, he was at the murder site, he had a conversation with Neil, he helped lift the body onto the ambulance etcetera. Accordingly, he had no choice but to write that report and hand it in.

Again, how would Mizen know that Neil was wrong?

If he had been told by Lechmere that the carmen found the body - like Lechmere caimed he told Neil - he would know that Neil was number three in line, not number one.
Then again, Clark, if he had been lied to by Lechmere...

It is actually all very easy, once we look closer at it.

Even if Cross hadn't said anything about a PC already being on the scene (and other than Mizen's word, there's no evidence that he did), by the time Mizen arrived at the scene Neil was already there and claiming to have found the body first. What was Mizen to say, "no, I knew about it first because two blokes showed up several minutes ago and told me about it, but I was too busy knocking people up to respond"? Better to accept Neil's word for it that he had discovered the body and go fetch an ambulance, as he was told to do.

And be exposed as a liar when the carmen were found, corroborating each other that they had told Mizen that they were the finders? You may want to rethink that.
Please note how Mizen told the jury about the other policeman BEFORE Lechmere witnessed. Mizen would be acutely aware that Lechmere would deny what he said IF Mizen lied. And that Paul would be able to corroborate Lechmere later on, meaning that he would be exposed as a liar in an extremely high-profile murder case. Is it credible that he was THAT stupid?
Plus Mizen freely admitted at the inquest that he had finished a knocking-up errand before going to Bucks Row. Would he do that if he thought that the woman was alone and possibly dying, or would he do that if had been assured that there was a colleague in place and if he had only been told that the woman was lying flat on her back, implicating drunkenness?

Take your pick. Just donīt come back saying that there was never any report. We need to have some standards.

1. "Why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?"

By telling everyone that Neil was the finder of the body it is just a fact and nothing else that they wiped out the possibility that there had been another policeman in Buckīs Row before Neil.

The police knew that Mizen was told by Lechmere about another policeman in Buckīs Row. They had naturally read Mizenīs report.

They asked Neil if he had spoken to any carman. And he said "No".

So the police could not answer the question ”Who was the policeman at the murder site?"

And since they did not know who he was, and could not find him, the police prefered to assume that it was Neal who was that policeman, and they assumed that Lechmere was lying.

That is why the police told everyone that PC Neil was the finder of the body and even put him on the stand to testify about that.

2. "And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong?"

Mizen was a policeman testifying at a murder inquest and Mizen knew what he had seen and heard. He knew that Lechmere had said that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And they could not ask Mizen to lie at an inquest about what had happened on the night of a murder.

So the police chose to assume that Lechmere had been lying to Mizen, since Mizen could not have lied in his report and since Mizen could not lie at a murder inquest.

The fact that Lechmere took back his statement means that either he was afraid of getting his statement about a policeman in the newspapers, or he was told by the police to be careful with it.

Regards, Pierre

[Clark]

Clar: Why "must have" written a report...

Because Mizen was part of a horrific case of murder where the polie were obliged to establish what had happened. There is effectively zero chance that Mizen did not write a report.

Sez you.

Until Paul's story appeared in the paper, Mizen's only known participation before that was fetching an ambulance at Neil's request. If there was any report on it, it would have come from Neil. You're just making stuff up here.

...why "must have" identified Cross as a carman?

I never postulated that. We are aware that Mizen THOUGHT that Lechmere was a carman, and that he had this confirmed at or just before the inquest. What I said was that Mizen would - if he was not lied to - be aware that the two men he had spoken to were the true finders of the body.

Well, you may not have postulated it, but you said it in the text I quoted. And how do we know Mizen "thought" Cross was a carman? The only record of him having said so was at the inquest, which was after Paul's story was published. He could have learned it from there.

Neil wasn't aware that Cross and Paul had discovered the body first. All he knew was that Mizen had shown up after he had come upon the body and he immediately sent Mizen for an ambulance. Mizen obviously hadn't told him that someone else had discovered the body first, because Neil was still under the impression that he had been the first on the scene at the time of the inquest. If Mizen had filed a report, why didn't Neil know at the inquest that Paul and Cross had discovered the body first?

Exactly - and THAT was the question I asked you: why was Neil unaware of this?

Perhaps because Mizen was never called upon to write a report detailing just how he had gone about fetching an ambulance. Again, that was the only involvement that Mizen had in the affair so far as Neil (or anyone else, for that matter) knew until Paul's story appeared in the press.

I will answer the question for you: arguably because the report did not mention the carmen. And in what perspective would this be possible? Well, NOT if the carman had been truthful. But if he had lied, and if Mizen had just written "was summoned to murder spot at 3.45 by PC Neil", THEN it works, all of a sudden. Amazing, is it not...?

You have a very inventive mind. It also works if Mizen wrote no report about his valiant efforts to fetch an ambulance. It also works if when Mizen got to the scene he accepted Neil's word that he had actually discovered the body. Even if Cross hadn't lied and didn't mention a constable already in situ, why would Mizen assume that Neil was wrong? Why couldn't he have just assumed that Cross had merely neglected to mention it?

At the inquest, Mizen knew that "Cross" was a carman, but on the murder night he did not. He only guessed that this was so, going from the appearance of the man.

Have you added spiritualism to your already impressive set of skills? How do we know that he guessed it? There's no record of Mizen mentioning it until the inquest. He could have learned it there before he gave his testimony (which isn't actually reported verbatim, so it could even have been an interpolation on the part of the reporter), or he could have learned it from reading Paul's account in the newspaper.

Note also that Cross said at the inquest that Paul had not left him until after he had talked to Mizen. Why would Paul have stood idly by as Cross lied to Mizen about a phantom policeman?

He wouldnīt. Which is why I think he was out of earshot. Note how Mizen does not say that he spoke to two men, he says that ONE man came up to him and spoke, and that this man had another man "in company" (that could mean anything, distancewise). The only paper that says anything at all about where the men actually were, is The Star (or was it the Echo...?), speaking about Paul as "the other man, who went down Hanbury Street".

Yes, your theory only works if Paul could not overhear Cross's conversation with Mizen. Which isn't consistent with what Paul told the press, is it? Although Paul told the press that he had done the talking, the actual substance of what he had reported as being said is consistent with Cross's testimony, not Mizen's.

Nope. He (Mizen) was directly involved in the case, as one of three (or four, to be more exact, Kirby arrived too) PC:s. Mizen left his beat, he was at the murder site, he had a conversation with Neil, he helped lift the body onto the ambulance etcetera. Accordingly, he had no choice but to write that report and hand it in.

Sounds like wishful thinking.Who said Mizen had a conversation with Neil? Neil's testimony was merely that when Mizen showed up, he had immediately told him to fetch an ambulance. That isn't a conversation, that's an order (or at most a request).

If he had been told by Lechmere that the carmen found the body - like Lechmere caimed he told Neil - he would know that Neil was number three in line, not number one.
Then again, Clark, if he had been lied to by Lechmere...

In the unrecorded conversation that you believe that Neil had with Mizen?

Even if Cross hadn't said anything about a PC already being on the scene (and other than Mizen's word, there's no evidence that he did), by the time Mizen arrived at the scene Neil was already there and claiming to have found the body first. What was Mizen to say, "no, I knew about it first because two blokes showed up several minutes ago and told me about it, but I was too busy knocking people up to respond"? Better to accept Neil's word for it that he had discovered the body and go fetch an ambulance, as he was told to do.

And be exposed as a liar when the carmen were found, corroborating each other that they had told Mizen that they were the finders? You may want to rethink that.

....Please note how Mizen told the jury about the other policeman BEFORE Lechmere witnessed. Mizen would be acutely aware that Lechmere would deny what he said IF Mizen lied. And that Paul would be able to corroborate Lechmere later on, meaning that he would be exposed as a liar in an extremely high-profile murder case. Is it credible that he was THAT stupid?

But here's the thing. That's exactly what happened, wasn't it? Mizen was exposed as either being a liar or being mistaken as soon as Cross gave his testimony at the inquest. Why is there no record of Mizen protesting Cross's damning testimony. Why didn't Mizen demand to be recalled in order to clear his name? Why was Cross's testimony allowed to stand in the record unchallenged? Witnesses at inquests are kept at hand for this very purpose.

What's your answer to that?

Plus Mizen freely admitted at the inquest that he had finished a knocking-up errand before going to Bucks Row. Would he do that if he thought that the woman was alone and possibly dying, or would he do that if had been assured that there was a colleague in place and if he had only been told that the woman was lying flat on her back, implicating drunkenness?

Take your pick. Just donīt come back saying that there was never any report. We need to have some standards.

That's your rule, not mine. You haven't demonstrated that a report exists (because the files are lost), and you haven't demonstrated that Mizen would have been asked for a report about his simple errand to fetch an ambulance. All you have is a desire to bolster your case.

BTW, I greatly enjoyed the TV documentary, and I think you have come up with an interesting theory. However, it is based on only one or two suggestive facts and a whole lot of absence of any historical record of what Lechmere might have been up to in 1888.

I greatly admire your research, but what you've accomplished is about the same as something that might be done by a thoroughly competent historical novelist. You've taken a minor historical character about whom very few facts are known and spun a compelling tale of what might have been. But it's mostly fictional imagination, not proof of guilt.

[Fisherman]

Clark: Sez you.

Until Paul's story appeared in the paper, Mizen's only known participation before that was fetching an ambulance at Neil's request. If there was any report on it, it would have come from Neil. You're just making stuff up here.

...and there endeth our exchange. I just havent got the time for this level of discussions. Sorry about that, but Iīm sure you will find others to agree with.

[Clark]

Fisherman: Sorry you took that remark poorly. It was meant to be humorous. I am a bit surprised that the remainder of my comments failed to meet your standards, but no hard feelings on my part.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman: Sorry you took that remark poorly. It was meant to be humorous. I am a bit surprised that the remainder of my comments failed to meet your standards, but no hard feelings on my part.

I can only marvel at how my sense of humour seems so very far removed from what others do for a laugh, Clark.

I will set aside some time later today to go into your post and I may come back with a remark or two, grumpy old man though I am. And high standards though I have.

[harry]

The only written work that Mizen need to perform was make notes in his notebook.This appears to have been so and was the source for his memory when required to supply information of his involvement.

[Fisherman]

I do not wish to get too caught up in this. However, a few words:

Mizen left his post on the morning in question. That alone would, if I am not much mistaken, have meant that he needed to write a report.

We should also take into account that as Mizen arrived in Bucks Row, he would - assuming that he had been told the truth by Lechmere - have this picture of what had happened:

1. He is contacted by a man who passes in company with another man, and tells him that there is a woman lying in Bucks Row, who is probably dead.

2. He decides to leave his beat, and goes to investigate what had happened.

3. When he gets there, he is informed that the police have a case of suicide or murder on their hands, and he is sent for the ambulance.

4. As he returns, he will have been informed that no weapon has been found, implicating that the woman has been murdered.

5. He is aware that his beat has been directly adjacent to the murder street.

If that would not have been enough for him to realize that he was requested to write a report, I donīt know what would be. I regard the suggestion that he probably was under no obligtion to do this as totally nuts, but who am I to deny people coming up with fresh new ideas?

By the way if he only wrote notes as per Harry - what would those notes have been about? And is there anybody, perchance, who speculates that the leaders of the investigation would have taken some scant interest in what Mizen had to say? No?
Were the leaders of the investigation interested in being able to check their people against each other, to be able to establish times, people passing, events that could have a bearing on the case? Probably not, eh...?

Before returning to the real world, that is all I have to say.

[Clark]

Well, Fisherman, you're the researcher who has had access to the available files. Are there examples you can point to in the other Ripper murders where a PC with such trivial involvement in the case had filed a written report? It would seem to add support to your case to show us some examples.

But the issue of the report is a bit of a red herring anyway. If one was written, you claim that no mention had been made of the carmen anyway, so it would have lent no actual positive evidence to your theory. You infer evidence from absence, but there are a number of reasons for Mizen not to have mentioned the carmen that are at least as probable as your favored interpretation. Perhaps the most likely possibility being that Mizen simply accepted Neil's assertion that he had discovered the body first.

It strikes me that the most damage to your theory that Lechmere lied is the fact that Mizen did not dispute Lechmere's testimony at the inquest that he had seen no policeman at the murder scene. Under your theory, this is a terrible smear against Mizen's character and serves to bolster Paul's allegation that Mizen was negligent in not hurrying to the scene.

As Mizen had been deposed just prior to Lechmere's testimony, he would have most likely still been in the room as Lechmere gave his testimony, and it's standard practice to keep all witnesses on hand during an inquest in case they need to be recalled.

The fact that Mizen made no rebuttal to Lechmere's testimony, and that Lechmere's testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged in the record, indicates that Mizen most likely accepted that he had been mistaken about being told that another officer was already on the scene (or knew that he had been lying, if you want to be less charitable).

You want Mizen to have been too smart to lie about having been told that a constable was already on the scene, but too meek and stupid to refute Lechmere's "lie" at the inquest--even though Mizen faced the same exact consequences resulting from Lechmere's testimony as if he had lied about the other policeman.

You can't have it both ways.

[Pierre]

Well, Fisherman, you're the researcher who has had access to the available files. Are there examples you can point to in the other Ripper murders where a PC with such trivial involvement in the case had filed a written report? It would seem to add support to your case to show us some examples.

But the issue of the report is a bit of a red herring anyway. If one was written, you claim that no mention had been made of the carmen anyway, so it would have lent no actual positive evidence to your theory. You infer evidence from absence, but there are a number of reasons for Mizen not to have mentioned the carmen that are at least as probable as your favored interpretation. Perhaps the most likely possibility being that Mizen simply accepted Neil's assertion that he had discovered the body first.

It strikes me that the most damage to your theory that Lechmere lied is the fact that Mizen did not dispute Lechmere's testimony at the inquest that he had seen no policeman at the murder scene. Under your theory, this is a terrible smear against Mizen's character and serves to bolster Paul's allegation that Mizen was negligent in not hurrying to the scene.

As Mizen had been deposed just prior to Lechmere's testimony, he would have most likely still been in the room as Lechmere gave his testimony, and it's standard practice to keep all witnesses on hand during an inquest in case they need to be recalled.

The fact that Mizen made no rebuttal to Lechmere's testimony, and that Lechmere's testimony was allowed to stand unchallenged in the record, indicates that Mizen most likely accepted that he had been mistaken about being told that another officer was already on the scene (or knew that he had been lying, if you want to be less charitable).

You want Mizen to have been too smart to lie about having been told that a constable was already on the scene, but too meek and stupid to refute Lechmere's "lie" at the inquest--even though Mizen faced the same exact consequences resulting from Lechmere's testimony as if he had lied about the other policeman.

You can't have it both ways.

Hi Clark,

Many good points there!

I have a suggestion and would like your opinion on it f you have the time. The two questions are from Fisherman.

What do you think about this suggestion and what problems do you see here?

1. "Why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?"

By telling everyone that Neil was the finder of the body it is just a fact and nothing else that they wiped out the possibility that there had been another policeman in Buckīs Row before Neil.

The police knew that Mizen was told by Lechmere about another policeman in Buckīs Row. They had naturally read Mizenīs report if there was one, or they had heard Mizenīs story.

They asked Neil if he had spoken to any carman. And he said "No".

So the police could not answer the question ”Who was the policeman at the murder site?"

And since they did not know who he was, and could not find him, the police prefered to assume that it was Neal who was that policeman, and they assumed that Lechmere was lying.

That is why the police told everyone that PC Neil was the finder of the body and even put him on the stand to testify about that.

2. "And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong?"

Mizen was a policeman testifying at a murder inquest and Mizen knew what he had seen and heard. He knew that Lechmere had said that there was a policeman in Buckīs Row. And they could not ask Mizen to lie at an inquest about what had happened on the night of a murder.

So the police chose to assume that Lechmere had been lying to Mizen, since Mizen could not have lied in his report and since Mizen could not lie at a murder inquest.

The fact that Lechmere took back his statement means that either he was afraid of getting his statement about a policeman in the newspapers, or he was told by the police to be careful with it.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Clark]

Well, Pierre, if Lechmere had seen another constable at the scene, and was compelled to lie about it at the inquest, why did Paul say in the newspaper that no policeman was present?

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.

[Pierre]

Well, Pierre, if Lechmere had seen another constable at the scene, and was compelled to lie about it at the inquest, why did Paul say in the newspaper that no policeman was present?

Because he left before Paul got there.

Regards, Pierre