Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Value of a lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
    >>... which clearly say that on the 2nd Neil is denying that two others found the body first.<<

    No, Neil denies two men called him to the body. Subtle, but important difference. Neil leaves the possibility of him not being the first open.
    I stand corrected

    However Dusty the impression he presents is that he was alone,. This is backed by his inquest testimony the day before when he said " there was not a soul about"

    Steve





    Steve
    Last edited by Elamarna; 08-19-2017, 02:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>... which clearly say that on the 2nd Neil is denying that two others found the body first.<<

    No, Neil denies two men called him to the body. Subtle, but important difference. Neil leaves the possibility of him not being the first open.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    The thing I can't accept,is that Mizen would not have informed his supeiors,before finishing his shift,of the fact he(Mizen)had been absent from his beat for a significant time,due to information from two witnesses.
    So the police knew that Friday morning there were two witnesses,important witnesses.Not knowing their names and having no contact information,the least I would expect of them(The Police)was to contact the press and ask that a plea be printed for those two witnesses to come forward.
    Unless Mizen lied by omission.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post
    presumably his story saw the light of day after the first inquest, harry. or else... why wasn't pc mizen appearing before coroner baxter at the first inquest?

    if coroner baxter had known about his story before the first inquest, i blv he would have called pc mizen, considering this entire encounter happened within five minutes of pc neil discovering polly nicholl's body.
    Harry and Robert

    Good questions.

    There are no sources which say this story was known before Monday 3rd, when Mizen gave his evidence. Has Pierre rightly pointed out absence of evidence is not evidence.

    However if he had told his story before Neil gave his testimony on the 1st one would not expect Neil to be claiming he discovered the body.
    There are newspaper reports from the 3rd ( Times & Daily News) which clearly say that on the 2nd Neil is denying that two others found the body first. Some claim this shows the Mizen story was not known on the evening of the 2nd; but there is nothing to show the timing of this. It is however likely that Neil is responding to the article in Lloyds Weekly of that morning.

    It suggests that Mizen had not given his story, or at least Neil did not know it, at the time the report appearing on the 3rd was written.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Robert St Devil
    replied
    presumably his story saw the light of day after the first inquest, harry. or else... why wasn't pc mizen appearing before coroner baxter at the first inquest?

    if coroner baxter had known about his story before the first inquest, i blv he would have called pc mizen, considering this entire encounter happened within five minutes of pc neil discovering polly nicholl's body.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    One question I ask is this,when did Mizen inform his superiors of his encounter with Cross and Paul.I know when he should have done,it is mentioned in the police code.Does it matter?I think so.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [QUOTE=Elamarna;426157][QUOTE=Pierre;426151]
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    Not at all.
    My hypothesis is In part:
    He told a lie, one which would be hard if not impossible to disprove.
    By telling this lie he avoided other questions being asked.

    Let me assure you when you see the whole hypothesis the reasoning for the lie will be very clear.

    Steve
    OK!

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [QUOTE=Pierre;426151][QUOTE=Elamarna;426146]
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post



    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 Buckīs Row?

    He didn't.

    The validity in this statement seems low. "A picture" "rather" and "could be misinterpreted" "of him believing Lechmere had told him this". ?
    Not at all.
    My hypothesis is In part:
    He told a lie, one which would be hard if not impossible to disprove.
    By telling this lie he avoided other questions being asked.

    Let me assure you when you see the whole hypothesis the reasoning for the lie will be very clear.

    Steve

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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 Buckīs 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". ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [QUOTE=Pierre;426136]
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

    Of course they reached that conclusion. None of their PC:s had asked for assistance in Buckīs 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 Buckīs 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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [QUOTE=Elamarna;426132]
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post


    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 Buckīs 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 Buckīs Row who had done this?

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    [QUOTE=Pierre;426126]
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post



    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    Hi Steve,

    What do you mean by "anyone accepted Mizenīs 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


    Originally posted by Pierre View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    [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 Mizenīs 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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X