Value of a lie

[Pierre]

In the sources from the Nichols murder there are two hypothetical lies.

They have been used to construct an idea call the Mizen scam.

The whole problem is very simple in it´s structure. There was an inquest. Two men were sworn. One was a police contable. One was a carman.

The police constable stated that the carman told him that another police constable wanted him in Buck´s Row.

The carman, when asked, told the inquest he did not see a policeman in Buck´s Row.

One of these statements is a lie. That is the hypothesis.

But what was the value of a lie for the men at the inquest?

Mizen first. Steve wrote that Mizen was "just a man who has made a mistake, which had no material affect on the crime, trying to protect his reputation." Postulating now that his reputation was nearly destroyed by a newspaper article. Having the terrible story in the papers from Paul. Mizen was desperate. He must do something quickly. Before the police turned their backs on him. Before his reputation was destroyed in London.

What was the value of lying at the inquest, for Mizen?

Conclusion:

The value of the lie is protection of a police constables reputation.

Therefore, to protect his reputation, Mizen lied.

Therefore, to protect his reputation, Mizen took the risk of being exposed as a liar.

Therefore, to protect his reputation, Mizen took the risk of loosing his position.

The carman now. Hypothesizing the carman saw the killer and the killer saw him. He lied to protect his family from the killer.

What was the value of lying at the inquest, for Lechmere?

Conclusion:

The value of the lie is protection of the lives of his wife and his children and himself.

Therefore, to protect his wife and his children and himself, Lechmere lied.

Therefore, to protect his wife and his children and himself, Lechmere took the risk of being exposed as a liar.

Therefore, to protect his wife and children and himself, Lechmere took the risk of being suspected for the murder himself.

The hypothesis is supported by Lechmere giving the name Cross to the inquest.

The killer could not find his wife and children by asking for Mrs Cross. Her name and the name of the children was Lechmere.

The value of the first lie is equal to the protection of reputation.

The value of the second lie is equal to the protection of lives.

Pierre

[drstrange169]

>>One of these statements is a lie. <<

I would disagree, one of the statements may very well have been a mistake and a mistake isn't a lie.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've probably missed something here Pierre but what leads you to believe that CL saw the killer and who do you think it was?

[GUT]

I've probably missed something here Pierre but what leads you to believe that CL saw the killer and who do you think it was?

Pierre thinks Cross saw a copper, who was the killer. But of course continues to throw out little hints and other types of BS without naming names, though for well over a year has been saying he needs just one little piece of data, or having the guts to set out exactly who and why.

[Abby Normal]

I've probably missed something here Pierre but what leads you to believe that CL saw the killer and who do you think it was?

Who cares

[Brenda]

.

Pierre thinks Cross saw a copper, who was the killer. But of course continues to throw out little hints and other types of BS without naming names, though for well over a year has been saying he needs just one little piece of data, or having the guts to set out exactly who and why.

Next month it will be 2 years of this.

[Elamarna]

Interesting ideas Pierre.

However I would like to ask a question.

With Regards to Lechmere lying, do you have any independent data that shows anyone accepted Mizen's account of what happened?
Or do you have a third party confession recounting the event? (I know the answer to that of course.)

I ask simply because there are sources which suggest Mizen's account was not taken very seriousl, and analysis drawn from other data that it was not!

Steve

[GUT]

Next month it will be 2 years of this.

And just after it arrived he said "If I haven't solved it within 12 months I'll go away" or words to that effect.

But still .....

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426114]

Interesting ideas Pierre.

However I would like to ask a question.

With Regards to Lechmere lying, do you have any independent data that shows anyone accepted Mizen's account of what happened?

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "anyone accepted Mizen´s account"?

Or do you have a third party confession recounting the event? (I know the answer to that of course.)

As you say, you know the answer.

I ask simply because there are sources which suggest Mizen's account was not taken very seriousl, and analysis drawn from other data that it was not!

With "sources" do you mean articles or police papers?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "anyone accepted Mizen´s account"?

I mean any official report which suggest that Mizen's superior officers or even the coroner was convinced his account was accurate. Note I do not say truthful has that is a personal perception and Mizen may have believed what he reported was truthful even if it were not

As you say, you know the answer.

With "sources" do you mean articles or police papers?

Cheers, Pierre

Certainly not articles Pierre

Firstly Official Police reports.
Secondly Reports of the inquest testimony of several.

I find your policeman theory intriguing, but lacking in support from the sources.

Cheers


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426125]

I mean any official report which suggest that Mizen's superior officers or even the coroner was convinced his account was accurate.

What do you think the reason is for a lack of sources for the police and the coroner being convinced that Cross saw a policeman at the murder site and reported it to PC Mizen?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426126]

What do you think the reason is for a lack of sources for the police and the coroner being convinced that Cross saw a policeman at the murder site and reported it to PC Mizen?

Pierre,

I have just given the same answer I am about to give on the "leaving beat thread. "

I assume an investigation was carried out after the inquest appearances of both Lechmere and Mizen on 3rd. One can only concluded this lead them to a conclusion that Mizen's statement was not accurate.

If they did not reach that conclusion then the absence of Mizen's account from later reports, and the inclusion of a difference version of event's is a little baffling.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426132]

Pierre,

I have just given the same answer I am about to give on the "leaving beat thread. "

I assume an investigation was carried out after the inquest appearances of both Lechmere and Mizen on 3rd. One can only concluded this lead them to a conclusion that Mizen's statement was not accurate.

If they did not reach that conclusion then the absence of Mizen's account from later reports, and the inclusion of a difference version of event's is a little baffling.

Steve

Of course they reached that conclusion. None of their PC:s had asked for assistance in Buck´s Row. Because none of them was there and asked Cross for help.

So why did Mizen say that Cross told him there was a police constable in Buck´s Row who had done this?

And how could Mizen believe that one of the PC:s did that, knowing they had not done that?

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426136]

Of course they reached that conclusion. None of their PC:s had asked for assistance in Buck´s Row. Because none of them was there and asked Cross for help.

So why did Mizen say that Cross told him there was a police constable in Buck´s Row who had done this?

And how could Mizen believe that one of the PC:s did that, knowing they had not done that?

Mizen did not believe it. He knew it to be false.
I did not say he believed it rather he presented a picture in which his actions could be intrepted as a misunderstanding and of him beleiving Lechmere had told him this; when he had not.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426146][QUOTE=Pierre;426136]

Mizen did not believe it. He knew it to be false.

So Mizen knew that none of the other PC:s was the one reported to him by Cross. Why did he then believe that there was another PC in Buck´s Row?

I did not say he believed it rather he presented a picture in which his actions could be intrepted as a misunderstanding and of him beleiving Lechmere had told him this; when he had not.

The validity in this statement seems low. "A picture" "rather" and "could be misinterpreted" "of him believing Lechmere had told him this". ?