The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Elamarna]

But Mizen's testimony was that Cross told him that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row, so surely the very opposite of what you suggest would have been in his mind, namely that Neil WAS aware and was asking for his assistance.

David

I think the answer to that is for many governed by if one believes Mizen or Paul and Lechmere.

I have said many times that I feel there is nothing to suggest that Mizen was a poor policeman, and have consistently suggested there could have been a genuine misunderstand about what was said and meant.


Steve

[David Orsam]

I think the answer to that is for many governed by if one believes Mizen or Paul and Lechmere.

Well I don't think Harry's scenario works whether one believes Mizen or not.

Harry was suggesting that Mizen had "good reason" to investigate outside of his own beat because he believed the beat officer was unaware of the body lying in his beat.

If that was the case then why didn't Mizen explain this to the coroner?

That's what doesn't make any sense. If Mizen had good reason to walk to Bucks Row then there was no need to lie. So I fail to see how Harry's scenario is any way plausible. If Mizen was telling the truth (as he understood it) it makes no sense. If Mizen was lying it makes no sense.

[Elamarna]

Well I don't think Harry's scenario works whether one believes Mizen or not.

Harry was suggesting that Mizen had "good reason" to investigate outside of his own beat because he believed the beat officer was unaware of the body lying in his beat.

If that was the case then why didn't Mizen explain this to the coroner?

That's what doesn't make any sense. If Mizen had good reason to walk to Bucks Row then there was no need to lie. So I fail to see how Harry's scenario is any way plausible. If Mizen was telling the truth (as he understood it) it makes no sense. If Mizen was lying it makes no sense.

David I think I may not have made my point clear. Those who have convinced themselves he lied about all or was somehow covering up from beginning to end believe that he was at fault.

Yes I do not see harry's view either.

For what it is worth I feel the guy acted in good faith on the night and that he may; I say may have attempted to cover himself after Paul's press article, which did not portray him in a good light.

I consider his later testimony for the events after he arrived at Bucks Row to have been misinterpreted by some rathrer than his being dishonest.

Hope that is clear.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Thanks for the elaboration Steve.

[harry]

I have given an instance of why Mizen could have left his beat without breaking rules.I will not enter an argument as to whether we should value one man's word against another's.

[David Orsam]

I have given an instance of why Mizen could have left his beat without breaking rules.

Do you mean it is no more than a hypothetical example?

It's unlikely to be the actual reason Mizen left his beat though isn't it? For if it was, he would surely have said so at the inquest.

[harry]

It is more of a belief in what I would expect a police officer's reaction to be,based on my own experience,and what I understand to be a police officer;s responsibility.I have ,'Walked the beat".

What I do not believe,is that Cross and Paul,having left Nichol's body with the intention of seeking a police officer,and having had no contact with any other police officer,would, a few minutes later, upon meeting a police officer,lie about another police officer being present in Bucks Row.

[MysterySinger]

That's a good point Harry.

[David Orsam]

It is more of a belief in what I would expect a police officer's reaction to be,based on my own experience,and what I understand to be a police officer;s responsibility.I have ,'Walked the beat".

Based on your own experience of policing under the rules which applied to Metropolitan police constables in 1888???

How many people did you wake up by "knocking up" in the morning while walking the beat Harry?

What I do not believe,is that Cross and Paul,having left Nichol's body with the intention of seeking a police officer,and having had no contact with any other police officer,would, a few minutes later, upon meeting a police officer,lie about another police officer being present in Bucks Row.

Yet, bizarrely, you seem to believe that a police officer lied under oath in public at an inquest even though you accept that he had "good reason" to leave his beat.

The thing is, you don't have to believe that Cross and Paul lied. In your own experience, have you never heard of a misunderstanding? Have you never been involved in a conversation in which you haven't heard someone properly and thought they said something else or vice versa?

If Mizen's understanding was that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row then that was a good reason for him to leave his beat was it not?

[harry]

I do not believe that'Knocking up'is the most important point,or that policing has changed dramatically.Mizen was faced with a choice.To act on information supplied by members of the public,that a woman w as lying either dead or dying in Bucks row,which was clearly police business,or carry on doing something that was only a service,and of minorr importance.
The fact that he chose the later,even though it was of short endurance,shows lack of judgement'
It is not bizzare to believe Mizen lied,or that he wouldn't lie under oath.Crime history abounds with evidence of people lying under oath,including police officers.
If Mizens understanding was that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row?
We today know,as Cross and Paul then knew,there was no police officer in Bucks Row when they(Paul/Cross) left,and I have seen no sensible argument of why they should lie about that particular circumstance,or misunderstand, a few minutes later on meeting Mizen.
So where did Mizen's understanding come from?

[Cogidubnus]

FWIW I agree Harry

Dave

[harry]

Thanks Dave.

[David Orsam]

I do not believe that'Knocking up'is the most important point,or that policing has changed dramatically.

No, apart from all the rules and regulations being different, the police code being different, the duties being different and the completely different Victorian society in 1888, it's all exactly the same.

Mizen was faced with a choice.To act on information supplied by members of the public,that a woman w as lying either dead or dying in Bucks row,which was clearly police business,or carry on doing something that was only a service,and of minorr importance.
The fact that he chose the later,even though it was of short endurance,shows lack of judgement'
It is not bizzare to believe Mizen lied,or that he wouldn't lie under oath.Crime history abounds with evidence of people lying under oath,including police officers.
If Mizens understanding was that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row?
We today know,as Cross and Paul then knew,there was no police officer in Bucks Row when they(Paul/Cross) left,and I have seen no sensible argument of why they should lie about that particular circumstance,or misunderstand, a few minutes later on meeting Mizen.
So where did Mizen's understanding come from?

Well for a start your premise is wrong that he "chose" to carry on knocking up. You need to read his evidence.

It is bizarre to believe that he lied under oath when, in your view, he didn't need to because he had a good reason to do what he did.

As for why Paul and Cross might have lied, isn't it perfectly obvious that they were late for work and might not have wanted to be forced to lead Mizen back to where the body was?

Alternatively, might one of them not just have said "You are wanted in Bucks Row" which Mizen (wrongly but understandably) interpreted as meaning that he was wanted by another policeman?

I'm not saying anything new here incidentally.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;409839]No, apart from all the rules and regulations being different, the police code being different, the duties being different and the completely different Victorian society in 1888, it's all exactly the same.[QUOTE]

Something that is often overlooked as people try to apply today's norms to 1888.

[QUOTE]Well for a start your premise is wrong that he "chose" to carry on knocking up. You need to read his evidence.

It is bizarre to believe that he lied under oath when, in your view, he didn't need to because he had a good reason to do what he did.[QUOTE]

As for why Paul and Cross might have lied, isn't it perfectly obvious that they were late for work and might not have wanted to be forced to lead Mizen back to where the body was?

Alternatively, might one of them not just have said "You are wanted in Bucks Row" which Mizen (wrongly but understandably) interpreted as meaning that he was wanted by another policeman?

I'm not saying anything new here incidentally.

I've long suspected that's what happened, "Your wanted in Bucks Row" gets there (eventually) to find other police ad a dead body, his (human) memory recalls it as "You're wanted by a copper down in Bucks Row" just human.

[harry]

I have read the evidence,David,of all those that were involved.
New methods have certainly been introduced in the ensuing years,but basically,as a poster pointed out,policies remain much the same.The law has changed little.Y es capital punishment is no longer,the caution has been modified,transport has relaced foot patrol,science has improved,but the common law still prevails.
As for being late for work,they would have been concerned,but not to the extent that,within the space of just over a couple of hundred yards,and perhaps three or four minutes in time,before meeting a police officer,they would have been so confused as to w hether they had themselves made the de cision to seek a police officer,or have been directed by a police officer,when it is clear that no such officer was present.That ability w ould not have changed.
Both of them?.It is not me that needs to study the evidence.
Only Mizen introduces the other policeman presence,and reasons have been given as to why he might lie.
Apart from that, there is one curious aspect that seems not to have been observed.It concerns the police in general and Neil in particular.It's staring one in the face.