Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 1 hour and 23 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by harry 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (59 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (11 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Israel Schwartz - new information - (2 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Police Officials and Procedures > General Police Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #321  
Old 08-18-2017, 05:54 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default

[quote=Elamarna;426143]


Quote:
They had two choices :

either Mizen had misunderstood.

Or

He had lied.
Misunderstand is far easier to accept and causes less problems.
They had the following choices:

1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: The coroner or someone in the jury asked him about the misunderstanding. No.
2. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about lying. No.
3. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.

Or do you prefer this model:


1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
2. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
3. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about telling the truth. No.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:06 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

[quote=Pierre;426149]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post




They had the following choices:

1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

I left out 3 has your post suggested they had no sources to back that view other than Mizen's own statement, however if I misunderstood fair enough.

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: The coroner or someone in the jury asked him about the misunderstanding. No.
2. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about lying. No.
3. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.

Or do you prefer this model:


1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
2. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
3. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about telling the truth. No.

Pierre
Mizen's testimony is not key to my intreptation any more than Lechmere's is.
Mizen could not be asked to counter the testimony of Lechmere as he was called first.
Lechmere denied the policeman story after Mizen presented it.
There is no record of it anywhere until the inquest.

He could have been recalled, but was not.
One assumes it was at this point that any investigation was carried out.
And one can assume that a decision was reached before Paul appeared . And certainly before the POLICE reports.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:22 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default

[quote=Elamarna;426154][quote=Pierre;426149]

Quote:
Mizen's testimony is not key to my intreptation any more than Lechmere's is.
Mizen could not be asked to counter the testimony of Lechmere as he was called first.
Lechmere denied the policeman story after Mizen presented it.
There is no record of it anywhere until the inquest.
Absence of evidence is not evidence. But you already know this.

Quote:
He could have been recalled, but was not.
One assumes it was at this point that any investigation was carried out.
And one can assume that a decision was reached before Paul appeared . And certainly before the POLICE reports.
So the police and the coroner made a decision.

The decision was that Mizen misunderstood and that Cross told the truth.

They thought so because:

None of their own PC:s had been in Buck´s Row asking for assistance.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:32 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

[quote=Pierre;426161][quote=Elamarna;426154]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post



Absence of evidence is not evidence. But you already know this.



So the police and the coroner made a decision.

The decision was that Mizen misunderstood and that Cross told the truth.

They thought so because:

None of their own PC:s had been in Buck´s Row asking for assistance.

Pierre
Probably correct Pierre.

The issue you have is that there is no data other than Mizen's own statement to consider there was someone in Bucks Row.

As I have previously said the theory is intriguing, but there is no data other than Mizen's statement, which may have been produced for specific reasons, to support it.

When you publish and if you can show the man you suspect had access to police uniforms then your theory will be considerably stengthed.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 08-18-2017, 06:36 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

Absence of evidence is not evidence. But you already know this.

Pierre,

Of course not however given Neil's Saturday testimony it is clear at that point he had no knowledge of the story Mizen was going to tell 2 days later.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:05 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 787
Default

I wanted to join the thread but I have to admit to being a little(ok, more than a little) baffled. Can I just ask a couple of questions? You may not want to answer as you've been over this ground so I'll understand.

1. Pierre, are you suggesting that CL saw a policeman with the victim (making him the killer)?
2. If so, why didn't he mention it to Paul or anyone else for that matter?
3. What leads you to believe these things?

I'm not criticising your opinions here Pierre I'm just trying to get an overall picture of how you've formed them. I am having a very 'distracting' time at the moment so I have to admit that I'm probably not following some threads as closely or with as much thought as I'd like to (that's my excuse anyway )
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 08-18-2017, 07:29 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Pierre,

Of course not however given Neil's Saturday testimony it is clear at that point he had no knowledge of the story Mizen was going to tell 2 days later.

Steve
Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

They were not to know that 129 years later the testimony would be looked at and scrutinised in the way it is today. Its a shame because from my perspective there are many important and probing questions which in my opinion could, and should have been asked of some of the witnesses in all of the murder inquests, had that have taken place, the way we look at this mystery 129 years later may have been totally different to how it is viewed by many.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:02 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default

[quote=Trevor Marriott;426173]

Quote:
Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.
Hi Trevor,

I agree with you.

Quote:
As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?
An hypothesis about lying should be backed by data from the case. We know that Lechmere called himself Cross at this particular event but otherwise Lechmere. Therefore he told half the truth. This is support for his statement that he did not tell Mizen he saw a policeman in Buck´s Row. He took it back and therefore he was not telling the truth.

There is nothing supporting an hypothesis that PC Mizen did not tell the truth.

They had the knowledge that no one of their PC:s was the policeman seen by Cross. And that knowledge did not contradict the statement of Mizen. Therefore, there is no support of the hypothesis that Mizen lied or misunderstood.

Especially not when the explanatory power lies in the support for Cross not being entirely honest at the inquest. But people are afraid of stating that Cross was not honest, since that notion is so contaminated by the Lechmere idea.

Quote:
Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.
And it was absolutely clear to them that none of their policemen had asked Cross for assistance in Buck´s Row! So that was that.

And Lechmere gained a lot by coming to the inquest. He got the chance to declare in the papers that he had not seen a policeman in Buck´s Row.

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 08-18-2017 at 08:05 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:06 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

Hi Trevor, much of that is possibly true.

When I post full details of my view on Mizen, you will see where I am coming from and possible reasons for lying.
You may not agree with the conclusion given, but the reasoning will I hope be sound and it will be backed by evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

They were not to know that 129 years later the testimony would be looked at and scrutinised in the way it is today. Its a shame because from my perspective there are many important and probing questions which in my opinion could, and should have been asked of some of the witnesses in all of the murder inquests, had that have taken place, the way we look at this mystery 129 years later may have been totally different to how it is viewed by many.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again that is well within reason.
The ambiguities has you call them, generally do not have a direct impact on the Murders, at least in the Nichols case. And has is obvious from my research we should not place too much emphasis on particularly words or phrases as it is clear much of what we have is not word perfect by any means.

I am moving on to the official police reports in the next few days, it would be good to have your comments given your experience.

Cheers

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 08-18-2017, 08:34 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post

There is nothing supporting an hypothesis that PC Mizen did not tell the truth.


They had the knowledge that no one of their PC:s was the policeman seen by Cross. And that knowledge did not contradict the statement of Mizen. Therefore, there is no support of the hypothesis that Mizen lied or misunderstood.
There certainly is supporting data that his report was not accepted as an accurate account of what happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Especially not when the explanatory power lies in the support for Cross not being entirely honest at the inquest. But people are afraid of stating that Cross was not honest, since that notion is so contaminated by the Lechmere idea.



And it was absolutely clear to them that none of their policemen had asked Cross for assistance in Buck´s Row! So that was that.

And Lechmere gained a lot by coming to the inquest. He got the chance to declare in the papers that he had not seen a policeman in Buck´s Row.

Pierre
And I say to you again my Friend, that apart from Mizen's disputed statement, which it appears his own superiors were less than enamoured, there really is nothing to support Lechmere seeing a man in a uniform in Bucks Row is there?

At present we seem to have 4 theories at least:

1. The policeman in Bucks Row, proposed to support a scam by Lechmere.
Apparently based on accepting Mizen's statement and disbelieveing Lechmere and disregarding Paul.
No other source based data to back such up.

2. The genuine misunderstanding.
Based on accepting that both Lechmere and Mizen told the truth, but again
No other source data to back it up.

3. Your take on the policeman idea.

Much as first, but with entirely different reasoning and motive.
At present no other source data, but possibly some to come at later date.

4. My as yet not fully disclosed theory.

Mizen did not tell the truth, there will be a reason supplied for this, indeed much of it already has been. Data supporting the motive for such is contained in the inquest testimony.
Data from several other sources which strongly suggest that senior officials did not accept Mizen's statement was accurate.

We must accept that there are insufficient sources which will ever allow us to reach a consensus view on this issue.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.