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 Trevor Marriott 4 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Trevor Marriott 15 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Sam Flynn 15 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Trevor Marriott 17 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by etenguy 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by etenguy 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (69 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (9 posts)
Non-Fiction: Ripper Confidential by Tom Wescott (2017) - (3 posts)
Annie Chapman: Annie's scarf - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: American Jack the Ripper - True Crime Conference, Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018 - (1 posts)
Witnesses: Israel Schwartz - new information - (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 > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-19-2017, 02:03 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,632
Default

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.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-19-2017, 02:20 AM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 949
Default

>>... 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.
__________________
dustymiller
aka drstrange


"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
Fisherman
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-19-2017, 02:24 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
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 at 02:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-19-2017, 02:57 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Dusty I would suggest the following hypothesis for the use of the words "called to "

On Saturday there was a rumour eminating from the press that two men had called a police officer to the body. No details were given, it was a scoop for Lloyds Weekly, until the Sunday.
It was assumed that being the first officer on the scene Neil was the constable referred to in the Rumor. His response was specifically aim to refute that rumour. Mizen had said nothing by this stage.

Christer has suggested that this report is from the Sunday evening, however that appears to refer to the comments by Inspector Helson earlier in the article, not the comments of Neil, which could therefore be anytime after the inquest testimony 1st.
I say this because if the rumour was in circulation before the inquest, I would expect Baxter to have asked him about it, it was obviously important.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-19-2017, 05:51 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default "discover"

QUOTE=Elamarna;426275

Quote:
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.
Dear Steve,

I want to thank you for being scientific in this discussion. It is much easier to discuss with you than with many others, who sometimes get emotional or are not able to handle the discussion at all.

Now, there is a big problem with your expression "claiming he discovered" here: There is no evidence that Neil "claimed" anything. He is actually just describing his own experience.

This has to do with the word "discover". If the use of the word was not different in 1888, you can consult the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "discover", and as you can see it has different meanings:

1 Find unexpectedly or during a search.

2 Become aware of (a fact or situation)

3 Be the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

4 Show interest in (an activity or subject) for the first time.

(Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discover)

There is no evidence that I know of that Neil used the definition in 3.

But there is evidence that he used the definition in 1.

So Neil did not need to "claim" his finding of the woman.

And there was no "claim" to be "the first finder" or "the first discoverer".

It was just a statement as in 1: Find unexpectedly or during a search.

Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-19-2017, 06:34 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
QUOTE=Elamarna;426275




Now, there is a big problem with your expression "claiming he discovered" here: There is no evidence that Neil "claimed" anything. He is actually just describing his own experience.

This has to do with the word "discover". If the use of the word was not different in 1888, you can consult the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "discover", and as you can see it has different meanings:

1 Find unexpectedly or during a search.

2 Become aware of (a fact or situation)

3 Be the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

4 Show interest in (an activity or subject) for the first time.

(Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discover)

There is no evidence that I know of that Neil used the definition in 3.

But there is evidence that he used the definition in 1.

So Neil did not need to "claim" his finding of the woman.

And there was no "claim" to be "the first finder" or "the first discoverer".

It was just a statement as in 1: Find unexpectedly or during a search.

Cheers, Pierre
I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

He said he came upon the body and no one was around. To me that equates to he found and that to discovered.
He had no way of knowing if others had seen it before, but as he was not aware of it, he had not been alerted and the area was at that point empty of others and it was on his beat, he mayhave ( I know!) assumed he was the first.

Dusty raised it with me earlier and I accept my wording my not be correct or the best I could have used.

My point was to emphasise that Neil had not spoken to anyone else, certainly not the two carmen Or indeed just one of them.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-19-2017, 09:24 AM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 716
Default

two men were on the coroner's mind at the september 3rd inquest.
with the witness tomkins, i think baxter was trying to determine if cross and paul were with pc neil when he arrived, evidenced by his question regarding the newspaper report. he seems to be trying to determine who was where, and when bc he has the Lloyd's article in mind.
baxter calls pc mizen bc he knows mizen is the constable from the lloyd's report. which means, somebody must have known something about mizen's story before the start of the 2nd day of the inquest.
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-19-2017, 10:03 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert St Devil View Post
two men were on the coroner's mind at the september 3rd inquest.
with the witness tomkins, i think baxter was trying to determine if cross and paul were with pc neil when he arrived, evidenced by his question regarding the newspaper report. he seems to be trying to determine who was where, and when bc he has the Lloyd's article in mind.
baxter calls pc mizen bc he knows mizen is the constable from the lloyd's report. which means, somebody must have known something about mizen's story before the start of the 2nd day of the inquest.

Baxter asks Tomkins if there were 2 or 3 men there before him. These could not be Paul or Lechmere as Tomkins also says there were 3 or 4 policemen present.
The ambulance arrived after this, Mizen who had gone to get it must have arrived then.
If that is so, for the two men to be Paul or Lechmere, all involved must be telling untruths.

What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article; however there is no reason to suppose he knew anything about the wanted by another officer part of the story is there?


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-19-2017, 01:28 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default

[quote=Elamarna;426337]

What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article;
Quote:
however there is no reason to suppose he knew anything about the wanted by another officer part of the story is there?

OK, Steve. You have a methodological problem now. There is no data for Baxter knowing that and there is no data for Baxter not knowing that.

So "no reason to suppose" can not be deduced from nothing.

I.e. you can not deduce that there was a reason or that there was not a reason from nothing.


Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-19-2017, 01:32 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,380
Default

[quote=Elamarna;426317]I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

Quote:
He said he came upon the body and no one was around. To me that equates to he found and that to discovered.
He had no way of knowing if others had seen it before, but as he was not aware of it, he had not been alerted and the area was at that point empty of others and it was on his beat, he mayhave ( I know!) assumed he was the first.
Not semantics, interpretation. Very different concepts here, Steve. First or not first. "May have" is useless, as you obviously know.

Quote:
My point was to emphasise that Neil had not spoken to anyone else, certainly not the two carmen Or indeed just one of them.
Dear Steve, what does this mean: "certainly not" "Or indeed just one of them"?

First certain then "or" ?

Certain of "not two" but then an alternative one? Why?

I think this is getting less and less reliable.

I hope not based on estimation of minutes as well.

Last edited by Pierre : 08-19-2017 at 01:34 PM.
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 02:03 AM.


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