What happened to Lechmere......

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, Abby! It is all quite frustrating, and a somewhat reckless usage of boards space, since I have decided not to answer these kinds of suggestions. Just like you say, the apron business is a totally irresponsible approach, since it goes 180 degrees against the evidence.
If there were two competing views, it would have been different, but as it stands, we are pretty damn obliged to accept Longs words over our own preferences.

Bottom line-just as with longs testimony under oath, I think people should reconsider the FACT that Mizen testified to something different than what lech said.It should have weight-and Its there in stone.
And, God Forbid!, Mizen was not misremembering and not lying, then Lech is lying or incorrect and the onus is on Lech not Mizen.

[Fisherman]

caz: Nope, because according to your wonderful PC Mizen, he was only told that a woman was lying in the street. There were no witnesses to say that the knife wounds were inflicted shortly before Paul's arrival, and not just as shortly after his departure. He hadn't seen any! All he could swear to was that Nichols was lying there insensible, apparently lifeless. PC Neil first established that she had recently been knifed to death, but there was nobody to establish in a court of law that this had already happened when Paul examined her.

Who knows if the killer didn't sometimes trawl the district for likely places where he might find a destitute, drunk, or sick and exhausted prostitute taking a much needed nap, who could quickly be overpowered and killed in situ without the preamble of showing his face to a prospective victim and being taken to a location of her choosing? If this could have happened in theory with a sleeping Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman or Mary Kelly, for example, it could have happened with Polly Nichols, insensible from drink in Buck's Row and left alone with her killer when Paul and Lechmere departed.

Iīll leave you to research that promising angle, Caz! I will prepare you for some little trouble concerning the timings and possible escape routes and so on. I am sure you can cope with it, though, given the level of fantasy you are showing off here.
The best of luck, and letīs return to the topic when the docu has aired!


I agree - for you! Since it was PC Neil who established the woman was deceased when he found her, and that she had been violently killed, he was fully entitled to refer to her as 'the deceased' throughout his testimony. Paul only found that out later, so while he could also refer to her as the deceased, (just as Mizen could refer to the witness as Cross, despite not taking his name on the night), he couldn't testify to her already being dead and/or murdered when he saw her (just as Mizen couldn't testify to knowing the witness as Cross when he spoke to him).

I really canīt see what point you are trying to make, Caz. Can you? That Paul did not know for sure that she was dead when he first saw her...? If so, what does that point to in your world? Does it totally clear Lechmere? Or what?

To be continued...

Please God, no...!!!!

[Fisherman]

Ben: Hi Fisherman,

I've probably been out of the Lech-loop for a while, but why would the failure of Mizen's superiors to "use" his report in the way you suggest amount to evidence that a "scam" occurred? Obviously it must emerged in the fullness of time that "two carmen had claimed to have found the body", and yet nobody cried "scam!" following that revelation.

There is only one type of wording that would dovetail with Neils words and that would not have anybody crying "scam" - and that is if Mizen wrote something along the lines of "was summoned to Bucks Row at cirka 3.45 by PC Neil of the J division".

Such a wording would not make anybody raise an eyebrow, reasonably. But it is only possible in conjunction with Lechmere having been lied to.

If he was not lied to, and left the carmen out of his report, I fail to see how he could have worded himself in a manner that did not create quite a stir afterwards.


He was "the finder", one of them at least; he just happened to have made his find independently of Crossmere and Paul. Or are you suggesting that Neil persisted in the assumption that he was the original "finder"? In which case, where's the evidence for this, and in what sense does it indicate a "scam" of any kind?

It was pointed out at the "press conference" (I donīt know what the victorian police called it, but that was what it was, apparently) on the 2:nd, that "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." He was also put on the stand the day before and professed to be the finder of Nichols. He offered no thoughts about how somebody else could have found the body and left it before he arrived, but he did say that the streets were totally empty, so his guess would have been that he was numero uno.

Yes, he just falls short of being the hottest and the most debated, though, doesn't he? Again, no names mentioned...

You rascal you. Now I shall never know.

[Fisherman]

you know your probably going to be accused of circular reasoning. LOL!

But I do know what your trying to get across. I find it rather frustrating myself when people try to say what the killer would or wouldn't do, ignoring all the evidence in the process.

the worst example is the killer wouldn't have come back out and written the GSG and therefore Long missed the apron argument. grrrr..

Indeed, Abby! It is all quite frustrating, and a somewhat reckless usage of boards space, since I have decided not to answer these kinds of suggestions. Just like you say, the apron business is a totally irresponsible approach, since it goes 180 degrees against the evidence.
If there were two competing views, it would have been different, but as it stands, we are pretty damn obliged to accept Longs words over our own preferences.

[caz]

Nice try, Caz. But all witnesses referring back to the incident would be justified to speak of "the body" if they in retrospect had found out that she was dead.

Nope, because according to your wonderful PC Mizen, he was only told that a woman was lying in the street. There were no witnesses to say that the knife wounds were inflicted shortly before Paul's arrival, and not just as shortly after his departure. He hadn't seen any! All he could swear to was that Nichols was lying there insensible, apparently lifeless. PC Neil first established that she had recently been knifed to death, but there was nobody to establish in a court of law that this had already happened when Paul examined her.

Who knows if the killer didn't sometimes trawl the district for likely places where he might find a destitute, drunk, or sick and exhausted prostitute taking a much needed nap, who could quickly be overpowered and killed in situ without the preamble of showing his face to a prospective victim and being taken to a location of her choosing? If this could have happened in theory with a sleeping Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman or Mary Kelly, for example, it could have happened with Polly Nichols, insensible from drink in Buck's Row and left alone with her killer when Paul and Lechmere departed.

An example is how Neil FIRST says "I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway", only to then describe how he AFTER having found Nichols went on to examine her. So initially, he knew not that she was dead: would you then have him say, sworn in as he was, I found a woman, examined the woman and then I stayed at the body while my colleague fetched the doctor?

Reality check needed, Caz!

I agree - for you! Since it was PC Neil who established the woman was deceased when he found her, and that she had been violently killed, he was fully entitled to refer to her as 'the deceased' throughout his testimony. Paul only found that out later, so while he could also refer to her as the deceased, (just as Mizen could refer to the witness as Cross, despite not taking his name on the night), he couldn't testify to her already being dead and/or murdered when he saw her (just as Mizen couldn't testify to knowing the witness as Cross when he spoke to him).

To be continued...

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

The evidence clearly supports that the Mizen scam happened. If it did not, why did Mizens superiors not use his report to establish that two carmen had claimed to have found the body? And why did Mizen not correct Neil when the latter said that HE was the finder?

I've probably been out of the Lech-loop for a while, but why would the failure of Mizen's superiors to "use" his report in the way you suggest amount to evidence that a "scam" occurred? Obviously it must emerged in the fullness of time that "two carmen had claimed to have found the body", and yet nobody cried "scam!" following that revelation.

And why did Mizen not correct Neil when the latter said that HE was the finder?

He was "the finder", one of them at least; he just happened to have made his find independently of Crossmere and Paul. Or are you suggesting that Neil persisted in the assumption that he was the original "finder"? In which case, where's the evidence for this, and in what sense does it indicate a "scam" of any kind?

Today, Charles Lechmere is one of the hottest and most debated suspects in the Ripper saga, whereas others - no names mentioned...

Yes, he just falls short of being the hottest and the most debated, though, doesn't he? Again, no names mentioned...

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Robert Paul said this:"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."

Therefore, as Paul is clearly making no attempt to investigate, and is obviously trying to avoid Lechmere, was there any need for Lechemere to approach him at all, assuming he was the killer?

No John, no need whatsoever. He need only have walked smartly away in the darkness without giving any eye contact to reassure this newcomer that he meant him no harm. If Paul then noticed the woman and chose to investigate further, and spent long enough to learn more about her fate than he did with Lechmere present, the latter would have been long gone, with virtually no chance of Paul seeing enough of the man to know him again. Lechmere could have been doing exactly the same as Paul had tried to do - which was to hurry along that dangerous street avoiding all human contact, in whatever form.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I know perfectly well how witness testimony works, thank you very much. Should any deficiencies arise in that department, Iīm afraid I will not turn to you to brush up on it.

Once again, you are suggesting alternative actions for Lechmere. Once again, I can only post my take on it:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.

you know your probably going to be accused of circular reasoning. LOL!

But I do know what your trying to get across. I find it rather frustrating myself when people try to say what the killer would or wouldn't do, ignoring all the evidence in the process.

the worst example is the killer wouldn't have come back out and written the GSG and therefore Long missed the apron argument. grrrr..

[Fisherman]

It's clear you still don't get it. The police couldn't put Lechmere first at the scene with a freshly slain woman without any witnesses. Paul was the only eye witness to place this unidentified other man in Buck's Row until Lechmere kindly identified himself and confirmed it, and Paul didn't see that Nichols had been slain, freshly or otherwise, so could not have testified to it. Moreover, Paul claimed in the newspaper that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, making his evidence unreliable, but also unfit for purpose. On Paul's evidence alone, the woman could have fainted or been unconscious from drink, and only appeared dead, and then knifed to death by an opportunistic killer in the interval between the two men going to find the nearest policeman, and Neil arriving to find her, not merely dead to the world, but 'freshly slain' and nearly decapitated.

Is it clearer to you now how witness testimony actually works - or doesn't?

Love,

Caz
X

I know perfectly well how witness testimony works, thank you very much. Should any deficiencies arise in that department, Iīm afraid I will not turn to you to brush up on it.

Once again, you are suggesting alternative actions for Lechmere. Once again, I can only post my take on it:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.

[caz]

And Charles Lechmere was found alone with her body very, very close to the time when she died.
Therefore, his presence on the murder spot belongs to the circumstantial evidence telling us that he may be the killer.
Also, the fact that nobody was seen or heard leaving the spot at this approximate time, also belongs to the circumstantial evidence pointing to Lechmere.

So Lechmere is not only motivated forward to identify himself as the man Paul saw alone with a woman he had seconds before been slaughtering to the point of decapitation. He is also compelled to admit seeing and hearing nobody else around who could possibly have done this, to prevent PC Mizen catching him out in a lie - the same PC Mizen who will inevitably catch him out in a lie about another PC wanting him, when PC Neil and Robert Paul both deny it, and Lechmere denies saying it.

The reasoning we are being given to swallow has more twists and turns than a twisty-turny thing. I submit that the reasoning is uniquely yours, Christer, and not that entertained by any killer who has ever wanted to remain in the shadows to kill again.

If and when asked if he had seen or heard anyone leaving the spot, Lechmere could have replied: "The only man I saw and heard in Buck's Row was Robert Paul, who did his best to avoid me until I detained him. I might have missed him if he was hanging around on the street before I came along as it was so dark. As it is, I only noticed him when he tried to pass me and leave the spot."

Sorted.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I would just note that being "cold to the touch" is no indication of time of death. As Dr Biggs points out, "Being 'cold to the touch' really isn't helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn't start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or 'lag' phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead a couple of hours but still have an essentially 'normal' body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold." (Marriott, 2015)

Good observations, John.

There is no way the police could have used Paul's account to establish that either of them had knowingly been with a 'freshly slain' corpse, since he had examined the woman with Cross and didn't appear to know she had even been subjected to any violence, let alone murdered. He complained that she was cold to the touch and should have been found by the beat bobby sooner if he'd been doing his job properly.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If-he-was-the-killer-then-he-KNEW-that-Nichols-was-very-freshly-slain-and-he-would-realize-that-the-police-would-have-been-aware-of-that-too.

There. Do I make mysef clear?

It's clear you still don't get it. The police couldn't put Lechmere first at the scene with a freshly slain woman without any witnesses. Paul was the only eye witness to place this unidentified other man in Buck's Row until Lechmere kindly identified himself and confirmed it, and Paul didn't see that Nichols had been slain, freshly or otherwise, so could not have testified to it. Moreover, Paul claimed in the newspaper that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, making his evidence unreliable, but also unfit for purpose. On Paul's evidence alone, the woman could have fainted or been unconscious from drink, and only appeared dead, and then knifed to death by an opportunistic killer in the interval between the two men going to find the nearest policeman, and Neil arriving to find her, not merely dead to the world, but 'freshly slain' and nearly decapitated.

Is it clearer to you now how witness testimony actually works - or doesn't?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

That's the point, Christer. It doesn't matter. Paul was the only witness who could have testified in court that another man was at the scene before him, and he was claiming the body was already cold and the beat bobby should have found her sooner. If he is believed, Lechmere is in the clear. If he is shown to be a liar, Lechmere is in the clear. Paul also claimed he was the one who alerted Mizen, while claiming the other man was at the scene before him. If and when Mizen saw him and realised he was lying about their respective roles, the natural assumption would be that the whole role was being swapped and that Paul had been there first, but being anti-police had sloped off while the other man was raising the alarm with Mizen.



Er, by reading the paper and realising Paul was coming out with a load of old guff, which PC Mizen was bound to counter? It would have been entirely Paul's bacon that needed saving after that, not Lechmere's. Nobody knew a blessed thing about him, but they knew Paul's identity, and they knew he was messing with the facts to give the cops a good kicking. It doesn't get any better than that, for a killer whose aim is to get away with it and remain totally anonymous for his next outing.



Ridiculous that you even have to ask. Lechmere knew everything there was to know about his conversation with Mizen, and according to you, Mizen remembered the brief conversation too, word for word. Of course they would disbelieve Paul's version, once Mizen was identified as the PC in question and gave the true one. Paul would have been declared a suspect before the other, yet to be identified man, and if they ever did track Lechmere down, it would only be Paul's lying word against his for who was there first. "Paul was leaning right over the freshly slain victim when I got there, your honour. I was the one who raised the alarm, which PC Mizen can confirm, so when I read Paul's lies in the paper I didn't dare come forward as I was terrified he was trying to frame me, and would kill me if I spoke up about it."



See above. They had to find Lechmere first, and Paul wasn't exactly co-operating with the cops, was he? It would need Mizen to keep his eyes peeled and look for the man again, and then to recognise him, and if Paul wasn't able or willing to do the same Lechmere could claim mistaken identity. He'd have been a fool indeed to give a false name in those circumstances, so why would he? If the ripper was crafty enough to bluff his way through without the least suspicion, from being found at the scene, to lying to a policeman shortly afterwards, to lying at the inquest, to killing again within a few days of killing Nichols, all of it under a false name, are you telling me he wasn't crafty enough to steer clear of the hangman any other way? How was he ever going to be positively identified as the first man at the scene, in a court of law, in the absence of an admission or your CCTV? And even if a jury was inclined to take Paul's unsupported word for it, it would still not be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had actually killed Nichols, would it? That evidence - blood on his person, knife in pocket - was long gone.



Yes, but only if. You don't get to say that Lechmere stayed undetected because of his actions until you can say that Lechmere was the killer. Putting the cart before the horse can only show the weakness of your case.



He did indeed. The difference between us is that I don't see him dancing or playing with an audience, or leaving himself with no better option.

Love,

Caz
X

Thereīs one of them loooong posts again about how you think there was a better alternative way of acting on Lechmereīs behalf if he was the killer. So here is, once again, my standard answer:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.


That really is all that needs to be said, Caz.

[caz]

Eh...? The police never believed Pauls assertions about a cold body, Caz. They knew it was warm.

That's the point, Christer. It doesn't matter. Paul was the only witness who could have testified in court that another man was at the scene before him, and he was claiming the body was already cold and the beat bobby should have found her sooner. If he is believed, Lechmere is in the clear. If he is shown to be a liar, Lechmere is in the clear. Paul also claimed he was the one who alerted Mizen, while claiming the other man was at the scene before him. If and when Mizen saw him and realised he was lying about their respective roles, the natural assumption would be that the whole role was being swapped and that Paul had been there first, but being anti-police had sloped off while the other man was raising the alarm with Mizen.

And ironically, it seems the police were ready to dump poor old Paul. But how would Lechmere know this? To him, it was bacon-saving time once the interview surfaced.

Er, by reading the paper and realising Paul was coming out with a load of old guff, which PC Mizen was bound to counter? It would have been entirely Paul's bacon that needed saving after that, not Lechmere's. Nobody knew a blessed thing about him, but they knew Paul's identity, and they knew he was messing with the facts to give the cops a good kicking. It doesn't get any better than that, for a killer whose aim is to get away with it and remain totally anonymous for his next outing.

Hum-de-dum-dum... Same answer - how was Lechmere to know that they would disbelieve Paul? And how could he "sit tight" when he would have known that with every passing second, the risk that he was declared the prime suspect grew? That was of course wrong, but how was he to know that?

Ridiculous that you even have to ask. Lechmere knew everything there was to know about his conversation with Mizen, and according to you, Mizen remembered the brief conversation too, word for word. Of course they would disbelieve Paul's version, once Mizen was identified as the PC in question and gave the true one. Paul would have been declared a suspect before the other, yet to be identified man, and if they ever did track Lechmere down, it would only be Paul's lying word against his for who was there first. "Paul was leaning right over the freshly slain victim when I got there, your honour. I was the one who raised the alarm, which PC Mizen can confirm, so when I read Paul's lies in the paper I didn't dare come forward as I was terrified he was trying to frame me, and would kill me if I spoke up about it."

Yeah, smashing idea - he should have said that PAUL was the finder, and then he would be off the hook, and the police would go looking for Paul instead. Absolutely ******* brilliant, Caz!
Any idea how he should tackle things when Paul was hauled in? Just stick with his story, although Paul vehemently protested? You donīt think that would have caused any further investigations or anything like that? Into both men, for example - revealing Lechmeres real name to begin with...?

See above. They had to find Lechmere first, and Paul wasn't exactly co-operating with the cops, was he? It would need Mizen to keep his eyes peeled and look for the man again, and then to recognise him, and if Paul wasn't able or willing to do the same Lechmere could claim mistaken identity. He'd have been a fool indeed to give a false name in those circumstances, so why would he? If the ripper was crafty enough to bluff his way through without the least suspicion, from being found at the scene, to lying to a policeman shortly afterwards, to lying at the inquest, to killing again within a few days of killing Nichols, all of it under a false name, are you telling me he wasn't crafty enough to steer clear of the hangman any other way? How was he ever going to be positively identified as the first man at the scene, in a court of law, in the absence of an admission or your CCTV? And even if a jury was inclined to take Paul's unsupported word for it, it would still not be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had actually killed Nichols, would it? That evidence - blood on his person, knife in pocket - was long gone.

But all in all, if he was the killer, Iīd say that staying undetected for a century is not half bad.

Yes, but only if. You don't get to say that Lechmere stayed undetected because of his actions until you can say that Lechmere was the killer. Putting the cart before the horse can only show the weakness of your case.

You may have to wait for the next Ripper to dance to your pipe, Caz - this once danced to his own.

He did indeed. The difference between us is that I don't see him dancing or playing with an audience, or leaving himself with no better option.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz! Again!

I would like to start off this session by quoting myself from my latest post to John G, since it very much involves you and your efforts:

Overall, I find that many people (read: Caz) suggest alternative things the carman could have done, things they judge would have been a better suggestion on Lechmereīs behalf. He neednīt have contacted Paul, he could have run, he could have claimed that Paul was there before him, he could have walked the other way, he didnīt have to examine the woman with Paul etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In the end, what he did is consistent with the possibility that he was the killer, and we are all very much aware that IF he was, then he pulled through. So maybe we should not try to decide that he could not have been the killer on account of him not having done what we - after having given the matter hours, days, weeks, months and years of afterthought - identify as a possibly smarter solution.
He had seconds only to decide what to do as Paul drew nearer, letīs not forget that. If he was the killer, I am very much inclined to think that he performed miracles in minutes, taking him out of harmīs way and conning Paul and Mizen big time.



And now, over to you!

caz: But the first witness on the scene to determine they were dealing with a dead body [not drunk, outraged, dying or possibly dead, but stone dead], let alone a murder by person or persons unknown, was PC Neil. If you can't see why that makes a difference in terms of sworn eye witness testimony from the scene of crime, I can't help you. What does it matter that the whole world soon found out she had been knifed to death? The two witnesses at the scene before PC Neil didn't know that at the time, or if Lechmere knew it because it was his knife, he wasn't saying.

Goodness me, Christer, this is basic stuff.

Nice try, Caz. But all witnesses referring back to the incident would be justified to speak of "the body" if they in retrospect had found out that she was dead.
Neil for example, would have been justified to say that on his former round, "the body" was not there. It is beyond ridiculous to suggest that he would say "the woman" was not there at the time.
An example is how Neil FIRST says "I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway", only to then describe how he AFTER having found Nichols went on to examine her. So initially, he knew not that she was dead: would you then have him say, sworn in as he was, I found a woman, examined the woman and then I stayed at the body while my colleague fetched the doctor?

Reality check needed, Caz!



I thought your argument was that Paul didn't hear Lechmere telling Mizen that a PC wanted him, because he went off part way through the conversation, giving Lechmere the chance to lie. Or do you seriously believe Lechmere wasn't accompanied by Paul [as Mizen testified] when he first spoke to Mizen, but had already taken his leave and didn't hear a word of it, and was therefore guessing the entire conversation when giving his press interview?

You seem to be struggling with your own suggested scenarios now, which is refreshing since many of us have been struggling with them for the longest time.

Have you compleletely taken leave of your sense, Caz? My argument is that Mizen never says that Paul said a iot to him.
It also seems that Paul was headed down Hanbury Street as Lechmere talked to Mizen.
These things are there, in the reports from the press. In no article does it say where Paul was during the conversation, but for this one, pointing Paul out as heading down Hanbury Street.

You seem to believe that Paul MUST have been with Lechmere from the beginning, at the very least. And you say that this should somehow be proven by how Paul knew what Mizen was told. Well, well...!

You are adding to mistakes here to your quickly growing pile of faulty crap:

A/ You are forgetting that Mizen says "A" man passing came up and spoke to him. Not two men. A man.
Try and make out the implications, if you will, Caz.

B/You claim that Paul would have had to be "guessing the entire conversation" in his paper interview if he was not in place to hear it.
Are you not forgetting, Caz, that Lechmere may have informed Paul what was said?

By the way, "the entire conversation" that you speak of, went like this:
...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.

So there is ONE specified item to look at in "the entire conversation", and that is the bit about Nichols being dead. Not perhaps dead, not probably dead, but dead. Otherwise, all Paul says is that Mizen was told "what he had seen".

Now, Caz, imagine if you will that Lechmere is devious enough to say to Paul:
Hey, you just walk on if you are late, and I will tell this officer over here that we have found a dead woman in Bucks Row".
Or, for that matter, imagine that Lechmere just said "I will talk to him, you just walk on", and then, when Lechmere caught up with Paul, the latter asked "What did you tell him? and Lechmere answered "Well, I told him that we found a dead woman in Bucks Row".

You may even ponder that Lechmere could have said just "Iīll take care of this", and guess what Paul would think he told Mizen?

Oh, and by the bye, if Mizen was telling the truth, then we can see that paul was NOT on the money about the woman being dead - for Mizen said that he was only informed that the woman was lying in the street.

And to finish off - we know for certain, you and I, that Paul was of the meaning that he felt Nichols stir, and that he therefore will have entertained the belief that she could be alive.
So why would he tell the paper that he had informed Mizen that Nichls was dead?

Maybe - oh, foul suggestion! - because he was reiterating what Lechmere had said to him? And if Lechmere was the clever, lying, devious bastard that I think he was, then he would do well to impress this kind of lie on Paul, considering that Lechmere would have known that there was a risk that Paul would testify later on. And in such a case, if Lechmere had only told Mizen that there was a woman lying in the street, but wanted to hide this fact if he was forced to testify, then telling Paul that he had informed Mizen that the woman was dead would be really, really smart.

Me oh my, Caz - why cannot the world be as simple as we want it to be? Here you were with this beautifully simple idea, and here I go and destroy it all. What a shame!

On a separate note, I do not exclude that Paul could have heard the intital discussion between Lechmere and Mizen, only to then gt out of earshot before Lechmere turned to lying.

So it is even MORE complicated!

It will take some digesting on your behalf, Iīm sure.