Solution of The Mizen Scam

[Pierre]

Fisherman has two important questions about what he calls ”The Mizen Scam”. For those who are not familiar with the concept, just go to the threads about Lechmere (Suspects) and there you find it.

Now, Fisherman claims there are two questions about it that no one can answer intelligibly. His only suggestion of an intelligible answer is that ”Lechmere is Jack the Ripper”.

So I start this discussion with the serious purpose to answer these two questions. Anyone who´d like to join me is more than welcome.

This is the problem that Fisherman poses:

”Mizen must have written a report about the errand and handed it in to his superiors. In that report, if he had not been lied to, he must have written that he was guided to Bucks Row by a carman in company with a colleague.

So why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?

And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong? He would have been very much aware of this, unless he had been lied to. If that applies, he would have thought that Neil was truthful when claining to be the finder.

Nobody has - so far managed to answer these questions intelligibly.”

I start here by trying to answer these questions intelligibly:

1. "Why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?"

By telling everyone that Neil was the finder of the body it is just a fact and nothing else that they wiped out the possibility that there had been another policeman in Buck´s Row before Neil.

The police knew that Mizen was told by Lechmere about another policeman in Buck´s Row. They had naturally read Mizen´s report.

They asked Neil if he had spoken to any carman. And he said "No".

So the police could not answer the question ”Who was the policeman at the murder site?"

And since they did not know who he was, and could not find him, the police prefered to assume that it was Neal who was that policeman, and they assumed that Lechmere was lying.

That is why the police told everyone that PC Neil was the finder of the body and even put him on the stand to testify about that.

2. "And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong?"

Mizen was a policeman testifying at a murder inquest and Mizen knew what he had seen and heard. He knew that Lechmere had said that there was a policeman in Buck´s Row. And they could not ask Mizen to lie at an inquest about what had happened on the night of a murder.

So the police chose to assume that Lechmere had been lying to Mizen, since Mizen could not have lied in his report and since Mizen could not lie at a murder inquest.

The fact that Lechmere took back his statment means that either he was afraid of getting his statement about a policeman in the newspapers, or he was told by the police to be careful with it.

This is my suggestion for an intelligible solution of the so called ”Mizen scam”.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

I'm not sure this convoluted solution makes any more sense than the "Mizen Scam" itself.

First, there's no evidence whatsoever that Mizen submitted a report. But, let us assume that he did. In that Neil testified that he and he alone found Nichols, it's logical to assume that Mizen didn't disclose his contact with Paul and Cross in his report, or otherwise.

Based on Neil's testimony, it's clear that Neil didn't know of Mizen's interaction with Paul and Cross. Further, we know that Neil testified that he'd seen Mizen in Buck's Row after he found the body and dispatched Mizen to fetch an ambulance. Yet, Mizen didn't mention anything to Neil regarding Paul and Cross finding the body and sending him there. It's highly likely that Mizen and Neil were both at the mortuary that morning. Again, it's clear that Mizen said nothing. Did he talk about the weather instead?

It's plain that Neil testified truthfully (in that he didn't know otherwise) that he'd found the body because Mizen kept this information to himself. Until.....

Lloyd's published Paul's statement describing his interaction with Mizen in Baker's Row. He castigates the officer for his reaction once having been told that a woman was lying in Buck's Row, likely dead. He continued "knocking up where he was". Cross corroborates. He said nothing and continued on. Further, Neil's testimony shows that Mizen didn't exactly hurry to Buck's Row.

Mizen arrived some time after Neil finds the body, summons Thain, they examine the body, determine she's dead, and Thain is dispatched to fetch Dr. Llewelyn. Now, here comes Mizen. Clearly he DID continue knocking up. He DID just continue on, with no urgency.

It's an obvious conclusion. One that doesn't require multiple liars, some institutional corruption, cover-up, or conspiracy: Mizen lied to obscure a response that - in light of the fact that ANOTHER WOMAN (the third to this point as far as the public was concerned) had been murdered - he knew reflected poorly on both himself and the police as a whole. He ONLY forced to come forward to try and mitigated the damage to his career and reputation because Paul's statement appeared in print. It was only then that Mizen even addressed the issue.

I believe the police were more than willing to abet Mizen in his dishonesty. After all, why not avoid more negative publicity directed at the police's inability to protect the citizenry?

Its not sinister. It doesn't mean we've found the Ripper. In the end it's a minor, understandable, human response by a man who wanted to remain employed and respected and a police force that wished to avoid further embarrassment if it could.

Ah! But simple solutions that do not reveal legendary serial killers. Thus, they are far less interesting...and much less profitable.

[GUT]

Or they all confused the two slaughter men with the two Carmen.

[Clark]

I think Patrick S is pretty much spot on regarding the events of the time, but I am a bit confused by this:

....Mizen arrived some time after Neil finds the body, summons Thain, they examine the body, determine she's dead, and Thain is dispatched to fetch Dr. Llewelyn. Now, here comes Mizen. Clearly he DID continue knocking up. He DID just continue on, with no urgency....

I think there must be a typo in there somewhere. You don't mean "Mizen" at the beginning of the paragraph, do you? Were you thinking of someone else?

[Patrick S]

I think Patrick S is pretty much spot on regarding the events of the time, but I am a bit confused by this:



I think there must be a typo in there somewhere. You don't mean "Mizen" at the beginning of the paragraph, do you? Were you thinking of someone else?

No typo. The chronology of events has Neil entering Buck's Row after Cross and Paul exit Buck's Row. After leaving Buck's Row, Cross and Paul meet Mizen who is engaged in 'knocking-up'. Both Charles Cross and Robert Paul stated that they immediately informed PC Mizen that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row, and that she may be dead. “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead", Cross stated at the inquest into Nichols’ death. Paul in a statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly News’ stated flatly, “I told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, in his own inquest testimony disagreed, saying that he was told only that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row. He stated that Cross told him on that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.” Both Cross and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing their information. Cross stated that he (Mizen) replied, “Alright” and walked on. Paul stated, “I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up…”

Thus, the timing of Mizen's arrival in Buck's Row makes sense. He was very clearly in no hurry. He obviously didn't take the men's statements seriously. From the time Cross and Paul EXITED Buck's Row to the time that Mizen ENTERED Buck's Row all this has occurred (from Neil's testimony):

1. I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about.

2. I noticed a figure lying in the street.

3. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east.

4. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards.

5. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him.

6. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn".

Mizen gives us more clues to his timing in his testimony:

1. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body (thus Thain is gone, dispatched to get the Dr.).

I'd also suggest that the issue of "Thain's Cape" is quite relevant as it relates to the police testifying in a manner that allows them - and the Met as a whole - to avoid embarrassment.

What is not in dispute is that PC Thain cape had been dropped at Barber's slaughterhouse. After he was dispatched by Neil to fetch Dr. Lewellyn he went first to the slaughterhouse to retrieve his cape. However, Thain stated under oath he did NOT tell the men working there (Tompkins, Britten, and Mumford) that the body of a woman had been discovered in Buck's Row. "When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed." Yet Tomkins, in his testimony, disagrees. He stated that he "and his fellow workmen usually went home upon finishing their work, but on that morning they did not do so. They went to see the dead woman, Police-constable Thain having passed the slaughterhouse at about a quarter-past four, and told them that a murder had been committed in Buck's-row."

Now, simple reason tells you who is lying and why. Clearly Thain is embarrassed. Telling these men that a woman was dead before he'd fetched a doctor, while not a damning crime and likely in keeping with human nature, may be viewed as something less than professional behavior in a police officer. In any event, its not a stretch to assume this may be why Thain might lie. Now, ask WHY would the slaughterman say that Thain told them about the body when he did not? They clearly KNEW about the body because they went to spot and remained there until the body was taken away. So SOMEONE told them. WHY would they say it was Thain when it was not? Clearly they wouldn't. This is a mundane thing to these men. They aren't thinking about Thain's reputation or how the simple act of telling them about a body may damage it. They are not thinking about the criticism that had already been directed at the police's handing of the previous murders. They are simply stating what happened and have no reason to lie.

[Clark]

Oh, I agree completely with your chronology, what's throwing me off is the first use of thr name "Mizen" in your paragraph. You say that "Mizen arrived sometime after Neil finds the body, summons Thain, they examined the body... Now, here comes Mizen..."

Do you mean something along the lines of "Neil arrives sometime after Cross and Paul discovered the body, summons Thain... Now here comes Mizen..."

Or am I just misreading something here?

[Patrick S]

Oh, I agree completely with your chronology, what's throwing me off is the first use of thr name "Mizen" in your paragraph. You say that "Mizen arrived sometime after Neil finds the body, summons Thain, they examined the body... Now, here comes Mizen..."

Do you mean something along the lines of "Neil arrives sometime after Cross and Paul discovered the body, summons Thain... Now here comes Mizen..."

Or am I just misreading something here?

OH! I see. I see. Poor syntax on my part, I think. Sorry. What I meant to is that MIZEN arrived sometime after Neil finds the body and SUMMONS Thain (that is to say that Neil is the one doing the finding and the summoning, not Mizen). They (Neil and Thain) examine the body........NOW here comes Mizen. What that mess is meant to convey is that Neil found the body, summoned Thain, dispatched him to fetch Llewellyn.....all before Mizen showed up in Bucks Row.