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:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by caz 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - by Elamarna 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Darryl Kenyon 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (19 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (2 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
  #281  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:28 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=David Orsam;425463

Quote:
Your views on what a "prudent officer" should have done are irrelevant. That is not in the Code. The Code did not require constables to be psychic or be able to predict the future. As far as I am aware, not a single contemporary criticism was made of Mizen for not taken the particulars of the carmen. It's a wholly modern obsession. There was nothing in the Code that required him to take the details so he didn't. It's simple.
Indeed.

So if someone walked up to Mizen and reported having seen a murder, the particulars would have been taken, since murder was a crime.

It is a matter of rules for different types of reports.

No crime, no particulars.

So Lechmere did not tell Mizen about a crime since he did not think it was a crime.

He reported there was a policeman in Buck´s Row already, according to Mizen.

So in that moment, Lechmere did not understand it was a crime.

And the policeman in Buck´s Row did not tell him it was a crime.

Lechmere was not the killer.

So why was he in need of inventing a policeman in Buck´s Row?

And why did that policeman not tell Lechmere that the woman was murdered?

So he could get the assistance he needed?

Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 08-14-2017 at 11:30 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:33 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
That is the exact point David, there was no criticism maybe because he claimed another officer had sent them and so that officer should have taken the details.
Of course when it appears that such had not happened, it can and surely was viewed as a mistake/misunderstanding and so no blame attached at all..

If Mizen did not feel what was told him was an emergency there was no Need to take any details.
Johns point that it may have been prudent to take details anyway is probably true in hindsight, but it was not required.

However not being required and looking bad in the press are different matters, but surely not enough on their own to force Mizen to lie.

Steve
He was not in need of lies to avoid looking bad.

He knew nothing about any murder.

There was no crime to hurry to.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:41 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
He was not in need of lies to avoid looking bad.

He knew nothing about any murder.

There was no crime to hurry to.

Pierre
And Paul knew about the murder when he was interviewed.

This discussion had been interesting. People here interpret things from the perspective of historical knowledge they have after the event in Buck´s Row. As did Paul in the press in 1888.

But Mizen knew nothing and could not be blamed for anything. A woman lying in the street. Not a pretty sight but nothing unusual in Whitechapel. And there was already a PC in place. So why hurry.

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 08-14-2017, 11:44 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

And # 281-283 above is of course the historical solution of the so called Mizen Scam.

Congratulations, David. You have helped to solve it.

Thank you.

Your dear boy Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:27 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
He was not in need of lies to avoid looking bad.
That is a matter of opinion Pierre and has you do not yet know my full position you cannot challenge it. However I look forward to you doing so, in the near future.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
He knew nothing about any murder.
Very true

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
There was no crime to hurry to.
Agreed, but there was a request to go to Bucks Row, be that from the Carmen or another officer. The issue however is not about hurrying; it's what was the intention after leaving the Carmen

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:31 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
And # 281-283 above is of course the historical solution of the so called Mizen Scam.

Congratulations, David. You have helped to solve it.

Thank you.

Your dear boy Pierre
My dear Pierre, that is not achieved until proof of another officer in Bucks Row is provided.
The disputed word of Mizen alone is not enough for that.

What you have is a possible solution, one of several.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 08-14-2017, 12:58 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Agreed, but there was a request to go to Bucks Row, be that from the Carmen or another officer. The issue however is not about hurrying; it's what was the intention after leaving the Carmen
Dear Steve,

It will be very interesting to see how you establish an intention as a historical fact, especially since that intention was not practised.

Cheers, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 08-14-2017, 01:11 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 4,169
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Dear Steve,

It will be very interesting to see how you establish an intention as a historical fact, especially since that intention was not practised.

Cheers, Pierre
Yes it will.
I would normally agree such was not really possible, but let's see what happens..
For now it does not exist has I have not disclosed it, however thread development last week forced me to give a few hints.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 08-14-2017, 09:44 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 970
Default

Just catching up, with street names, the one that interests me is Cross's claim in the Morning Advertiser,

"I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row."

No Parson in the area, ever, as far as I can tell.

Closest is Pereira Street, next to Foster. It was called Park Street, Park Street/ Parson could be a mishearing.

What intrigues me is the term, "I went down", On the map Pereira would be consistant with "down", but, of course, "down" can mean along! I've checked if Cross describes going "down" Buck's Row, he doesn't.

So, all in all I'm wondering if he did, in fact, go down Pereira?
__________________
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
  #290  
Old 08-14-2017, 10:09 PM
drstrange169 drstrange169 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 970
Default

>>One could say that we do not know what name he actually gave ...<<

What people tend to forget is that, Xmere appeared in court twice.

The first time, to be identified by Mizen. When you look for similar instances in courts, you find the person is identified by name and address for the court records.
__________________
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
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 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.