The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Fisherman]

I'm not looking for anyone to kick while they are down, I didn't even indicate that.

I know - I was just saying that IF you should ever feel the urge, donīt come looking for me. It WAS implied that I was lying down, and I am nothing even close to that.

Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

I have answered...

...
But regardless of this explanation, it neverthless still applies that Mizen never says "there were these two men sho spoke to me" or "two man came up to me" or "these two carmen informed me". He consistently speaks of just the one man bringing over the message, and what I asked from you is why he would not admit that they were two men speaking to him? What - if anything - did he stand to gain from that? And what did Lechmere stand to gain from disinforming the inquest about it?
You will find that one man has nothing at all to gain, whereas the other manīs life may hang on it.
...
Fisherman
still standing

I have answered most of this in our crossed posts, I thought that you had already left.

It's pretty obvious that neither at the initial stage, nor later, was there any suspicion attaching to Cross. On the other hand, if proved to be guilty of neglect of duty Mizen would be in serious trouble and likely to receive at least a heavy fine for neglect of duty or even dismissal. And the police hierarchy certainly didn't want more bad press.

[Stewart P Evans]

Admiration

I know - I was just saying that IF you should ever feel the urge, donīt come looking for me. It WAS implied that I was lying down, and I am nothing even close to that.
Fisherman

I have nothing but admiration for your sturdy armour and dogged stand against all odds - arise Sir Christer.

[Stewart P Evans]

Too Big

I know - I was just saying that IF you should ever feel the urge, donīt come looking for me. It WAS implied that I was lying down, and I am nothing even close to that.
Fisherman

You appear to be much too big for me to pick on.

[Fisherman]

I have answered most of this in our crossed posts, I thought that you had already left.

It's pretty obvious that neither at the initial stage, nor later, was there any suspicion attaching to Cross. On the other hand, if proved to be guilty of neglect of duty Mizen would be in serious trouble and likely to receive at least a heavy fine for neglect of duty.

Still here, but on my way out. I was just wondering if you could answer the precise question I put to you:

Precisely why would Mizen gain from not acknowledging that BOTH Lechmere and Paul had spoken to him?
No matter if he could have been subjected to allegations of neglect, how would acknowledging that both men spoke to him worsen things?

You see, I find this is the one thing that tells us that Lechmere, not Mizen, was the liar. Mizen stood to gain absolutely nothing from it. But Lechmere..! If he could convince the inquest that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, then nobody would know that he had spirited Paul away while lying to the PC - or so my thinking goes.

Is there any reason at all for Mizen to not acknowledge that BOTH Lechmere and Paul spoke to him? Thatīs what I would like to know.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I have nothing but admiration for your sturdy armour and dogged stand against all odds - arise Sir Christer.

You are far too kind! Whatīs with this "Excalibur" logo on my sword...?

Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Poor Grasp

Stewart, from personal experience I can inform you that you are about to be sucked into a linguistic discussion. Good luck!

With my poor grasp of English I shall soon be backing out...

[Fisherman]

With my poor grasp of English I shall soon be backing out...

Letīs back out together, then - but I would be grateful if you had an answer to offer on my question first!

Or anybody else for that matter - what DID Mizen stand to gain from not acknowledging that both carmen spoke to him, the way Lechmere claimed.

Itīs a tough one, isnīt it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

False testimony...

Still here, but on my way out. I was just wondering if you could answer the precise question I put to you:
Precisely why would Mizen gain from not acknowledging that BOTH Lechmere and Paul had spoken to him?
No matter if he could have been subjected to allegations of neglect, how would acknowledging that both men spoke to him worsen things?
You see, I find this is the one thing that tells us that Lechmere, not Mizen, was the liar. Mizen stood to gain absolutely nothing from it. But Lechmere..! If he could convince the inquest that he and Paul both spoke to Mizen, then nobody would know that he had spirited Paul away while lying to the PC - or so my thinking goes.
Is there any reason at all for Mizen to not acknowledge that BOTH Lechmere and Paul spoke to him? Thatīs what I would like to know.
The best,
Fisherman

Got to answer this one.

Although giving false testimony like this, at an inquest, does not amount to perjury, it is still an offence if proven. In these cases if it is just the word of one against the other it's an impasse as it's only the word of one man against another. You need two witnesses to prove the offence. Also it has to be proven to be deliberate. The senior officers would certainly have been aware of the situation because of the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper allegations in respect of Mizen - his failure to immediately respond to information received in a life and death case.

Indeed, the Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper piece initially also implied neglect against PC Neil as Paul alleged, regarding the finding of Nichols, "...it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time." They actually returned to see Paul on the Saturday night, after the inquest hearing, and stated, "Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police..." They were really gunning for the police.

Much better for Mizen that only one witness was contradicting him rather than two. He did not want to be proved to be lying. I am sure that he received a right royal dressing down from his supervisors and they would want the matter to pass relatively unnoticed as quickly as possible.

[Chris]

Fisherman

Fine. I've provided the information about coronatorial practice, and people can make use of it or ignore it as they wish.

[Stewart P Evans]

Interesting

It would be interesting to know how and exactly when the police first made contact with Robert Paul.

[Stewart P Evans]

Answered

Letīs back out together, then - but I would be grateful if you had an answer to offer on my question first!
...
Fisherman

I've answered your question, are you now backing out?

[Stewart P Evans]

Tough?

...
...
Or anybody else for that matter - what DID Mizen stand to gain from not acknowledging that both carmen spoke to him, the way Lechmere claimed.
Itīs a tough one, isnīt it?
The best,
Fisherman

No, it's not tough at all. See my answer above.

[Chris]

Your expertise in all manner of subjects is awe inspiring. You're a genuine one off. DNA, The Law, you take everything in your stride. Awesome!

You're too kind. I don't want to be churlish after you've complimented me, but I have to say, I do find it a bit disturbing that people are so easily impressed.

After all, we're only talking about the kind of DNA analysis that's absolutely commonplace among ordinary genealogists these days, and the kind of legal knowledge that every "crime enthusiast" should have.

[Stewart P Evans]

Sorry...

You're too kind. I don't want to be churlish after you've complimented me, but I have to say, I do find it a bit disturbing that people are so easily impressed.
After all, we're only talking about the kind of DNA analysis that's absolutely commonplace among ordinary genealogists these days, and the kind of legal knowledge that every "crime enthusiast" should have.

Sorry Chris, I have to agree with Observer.