A Uniform-Carrier?

[Bridewell]

This is a thread about the actions of P.c. Mizen after he was spoken to by Charles Cross/Lechmere and Robert Paul. The starting point is an assumption that Cross/Lechmere and Paul were exactly what they claimed to be - innocent witnesses. That is a non-negotiable presumption for the purposes of this thread. If you are not comfortable in posting on a thread based upon such a premise, then don't post on it. Claims that either man was the killer and/or a liar are off-topic and will be treated accordingly. Please respect this.

According to The Times report of Cross's evidence:

'They (Cross & Paul) went to Bakers-row, saw the last witness (Mizen) and told him there was a woman lying down in Bucks Row on the broad of her back. Witness (Cross) also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man (Paul) believed her to be dead. The constable replied, "All right"'.

According to the same newspaper's report of Paul's evidence:

"They agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met.......They looked to see if there was a constable, but there was not one to be seen......Witness and the other man (Cross) walked on together until they met a policeman at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him (Mizen) what they had seen."

According to the same newspaper's report of Mizen's evidence:

"He was on Hanbury-street, Bakers-row, and a man passing said, 'You are wanted in Bakers-row'. (The Star has the correct location - Bucks Row). The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he found Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for an ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Bucks-row he continued knocking people up".

The primary duties of a police officer were, as they remain today:

The protection of life and property.
The maintenance of order.
The prevention and detection of crime.
The prosecution of offenders against the peace.

P.c. Mizen's first priority, in any situation, was expected to be the protection of life. Mizen is here told by two men that he is needed in Bucks Row, that a woman is lying on her back. One man (Cross) tells him the woman is either drunk or dead. The other (Paul) says that he believes her to be dead.
P.c. Mizen then has to deny a suggestion that he continued with his knocking-up (of householders for work). He also says that the two men "didn't say anything about a murder having been committed". Strictly-speaking, this is true - neither Cross nor Paul mentioned murder - but it side-steps the key issue that both men appraised him of the fact that a woman was lying on her back in the street.

P.c. Mizen, after being given this information, has one over-riding duty and that is to protect the life of the woman concerned - and, to that end, immediately to make his way to the scene. If he did so, all well and good, but did he?

According to The Star's report of Robert Paul's evidence:

Answering a juryman, witness said he did not tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him. After Mizen had been told there was a woman lying in Buck's-row he went out and knocked at a door. He did not go towards Buck's-row to do this.

P.c. Mizen did not, therefore, go straight to Bucks Row as he should have done. This was "Neglect of Duty" under the discipline code - and punishable with dismissal.

There is a certain type of officer in the police service, often referred to as a 'uniform-carrier'. Such an individual does the bare minimum amount of work and off-loads as much responsibility as possible onto others. A delay in response, so as to ensure that another officer reached the body ahead of him, would be the typical response of such an officer in P.c. Mizen's situation. If Mizen was a uniform-carrier he had every reason to make subtle alterations to the information given to him by the two carmen in order to preserve his own neck. Robert Paul's evidence indicates that P.c. Mizen's response was not what it should have been.

I re-emphasise the basic premise of this thread - that Cross/Lechmere & Paul are honest witnesses and suggest that, based on their testimony, Mizen is a uniform-carrier.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Sally]

Hi Colin

Seriously drunk women on the streets of Whitechapel were rather common. Policemen routinely took them to the infirmary (weekly, if not more frequently). Many were prostitutes. I wonder if Mizen assumed another drunk prostitute who would have to be dealt with and thought it could wait for a few minutes.

Just a thought.

[lynn cates]

underestimation

Hello Colin, Sally. Would it be fair to venture that Mizen underestimated the gravity of the situation?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

It should be noted that Knocking up was an accepted part of an old Constables duty.

The 1829 Met police act still permitted to carry this additional duty on. Also, and this I suspect is the crux for Mizen, PCs were paid extra by those who where being awakened by the PC.

That, tied in with Mizens assumption the woman in Bucks Row was a mere drunk (which meant escorting her to the nearest station, which was a fair way in Commercial St) may not have appealed.

Plus Bucks Row was on J Divisions patch....best let them deal with it eh?

Yes Colin, I agree with you.

Monty

[Jenni Shelden]

If he was trying to cover himself he would perhap be more likely to say he was told there was a drunk woman? I agree with your reasoning that he is likely to have actually thought that which would explain why he knocked up the house nearby to where he was standing before heading to escort the drunk lady he thought he would find to the station.

its easy for us to think with hindsight, but this was the first in the series, there was no atmosphere of JtR at that time as such

Jenni

[Sally]

I think Lynn is correct - Mizen underestimated the gravity of the situation. I think it is probable that nobody - not Cross, Paul, nor Mizen - knew that Nichols had been murdered at the time. Nor was there any particular reason for them to think so - as Jenni says, no Jtr then; and people died on the streets of Whitechapel quite regularly, ultimately from the extreme poverty of their existence - so even if Nichols had turned out to be dead, and not drunk, there was no reason for Paul and Cross, who saw her in very dark conditions; or Mizen, who hadn't seen her at all; to assume foul play.

Those living and working in Whitechapel would have been aware of the homeless and itinerant; even if they had no direct personal experience of them. The residents of George Yard knew that people slept there, e.g.

As it is today, most people turn a blind eye and get on with their lives unless directly confronted with, say, a prone body on the street on their way to work. And even then, as I think the actions taken by Cross illustrates perfectly, people don't want to get involved.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

He also says that the two men "didn't say anything about a murder having been committed". Strictly-speaking, this is true - neither Cross nor Paul mentioned murder - but it side-steps the key issue that both men appraised him of the fact that a woman was lying on her back in the street. "

I don´t think that both men did so. Mizen is quite adamant that just the one carman - the one he had come to know as "Cross" spoke to him. In the Star, he adds that there was another man in "Cross´" company as the two spoke, but this man proceeded up Hanbury Street.

"If Mizen was a uniform-carrier he had every reason to make subtle alterations to the information given to him by the two carmen in order to preserve his own neck. Robert Paul's evidence indicates that P.c. Mizen's response was not what it should have been."

But if he was a uniform-carrier, why would he admit that Lechmere had spoken of another PC that requested his help? That would be something that would very much point him out as being non-cooperative, taken together with the admission that he carried on his knocking-up job instead of hurrying to the other PC:s side.
To boot, Lechmere denied having mentioned any PC, plus we KNOW that there WAS no PC in place as the carmen left - and therefore either Lechmere lied for no reason at all if he was innocent - and this thread predisposes that - or Mizen concocted the PC himself. Or he misheard Lechmere. Either way, it spelt disaster for Mizen to admit to having heard information that a PC awaited him.

Likewise, if Lechmere spoke of a woman who was dead or drunk, then he could easily have dropped the "dead" part, and only admitted to having heard the "drunk" bit.
In fact, the testimony Mizen delivers is one that very much points to him being honest about it all.
He could have denied going on with the knocking-up business, and it would have been his words against the carmens - but he didn´t.
He could have omitted to mention that other PC - but he didn´t.
He could have calimed to only have heard the "drunk" and not the "dead" part - but he didn´t.

If you are correct, his going on with the knocking-up business could get him fired. This is why I think we have a perfectly honest testimony on our hands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Disco Stu]

If we're dealing with "could haves", he could have assumed the phantom PC was already dealing with the woman in question. Having heard no summons (whistle, truncheon beat, lamp?), he had only the word of the two witnesses that his presence was required.

Regarding the main topic, do we have any records showing the beat rosters? Did the beat constables get rotated regularly? If PC Mizen was paid to wake up locals along the beat, would that imply being on the same route each day? I ask because I would expect him to be familiar with the local workers if he passed them at more or less the same time and place each morning. He doesn't seem familiar with Mr Cross or Mr Paul, nor they with him. This lack of familiarity perhaps lends weight to the "uniform carrier" idea.

[Fisherman]

Disco Stu:

"If we're dealing with "could haves", he could have assumed the phantom PC was already dealing with the woman in question. "

Eminently logical.

"Having heard no summons (whistle, truncheon beat, lamp?), he had only the word of the two witnesses that his presence was required."

Same thing - eminently logical.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

No policeman?

Hello all,

Or maybe they simply misunderstood each other.

Best wishes,
C4

[Bridewell]

The Other PC

But if he was a uniform-carrier, why would he admit that Lechmere had spoken of another PC that requested his help?

Hi Fisherman,

Firstly, thank-you for sticking within the spirit of the thread, as I know that your heart lies elsewhere.

If he was a uniform-carrier, a pretence that he had been told that another officer was already in attendance would reduce the urgency as he would be attending only as back-up to that officer. In that scenario he could arguably justify continuing with knocking-up for a couple of minutes. He couldn't otherwise do so as the Number One priority of any officer is to protect life. As it turned out, Polly Nichols was beyond help - and another officer had reached her - but Mizen didn't know that. He should not have continued knocking-up; it was a lower priority.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Hello Colin, Sally. Would it be fair to venture that Mizen underestimated the gravity of the situation?

Cheers.
LC

Definitely. He made a wrong choice.

Regards, Bridewell.

[caz]

Hi Fisherman,

Firstly, thank-you for sticking within the spirit of the thread, as I know that your heart lies elsewhere.

If he was a uniform-carrier, a pretence that he had been told that another officer was already in attendance would reduce the urgency as he would be attending only as back-up to that officer. In that scenario he could arguably justify continuing with knocking-up for a couple of minutes. He couldn't otherwise do so as the Number One priority of any officer is to protect life. As it turned out, Polly Nichols was beyond help - and another officer had reached her - but Mizen didn't know that. He should not have continued knocking-up; it was a lower priority.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell,

Nice thread.

In addition to the above, while I can see Fisherman's point that it did Mizen no good to add that his presence had been requested by this PC supposedly at the scene, he needed that part of the story to explain why Cross and Paul would have alerted him at all. If they knew a copper was already dealing with the woman, why would they go and find another unless he had specifically sent them to fetch one?

When Mizen learned that the woman was already dead, and a fellow officer had arrived at the scene shortly after Cross and Paul had left to alert him, his conscience would have been relatively clear. But he'd have been in serious trouble if the woman had not been dead but in need of immediate help, and he had been seen to carry on knocking up after what he had been told - even more so, with only an assumption that another officer would find her before he could get there.

Love,

Caz
X

[martin wilson]

Mizens' inquest evidence does not tally with PC John Neils.
Mizen said when he arrived there.
Neil said he saw another policeman in Bakers Row.
All the best.

[Bridewell]

In addition to the above, while I can see Fisherman's point that it did Mizen no good to add that his presence had been requested by this PC supposedly at the scene, he needed that part of the story to explain why Cross and Paul would have alerted him at all. If they knew a copper was already dealing with the woman, why would they go and find another unless he had specifically sent them to fetch one?

Hi Caz,

That's a good point. Not one I had considered before.

Regards, Bridewell.