Leaving one's beat

[John G]

no sorry, not writing clear, just got up when i posted is only excuse.
I meant before Lechmere, Mizen has never been a suspect has far as I know



I agree John, procedurally he may have followed guidelines, but that would not be how it may appear in the press, his superiors may not have wanted such trouble, he may well have supposed.


Steve

Yes, and on further reflection I think David's interpretation of The Code may be too literal, with all due respect to him.

Thus, The Police Code stated that an officer would face misconduct charges for "neglecting to obtain necessary names, addresses and particulars, in a criminal case, or a case of accident."

Now, of course, PC Mizen didn't know that the incident constituted a criminal case or an accident, but surely a purposive interpretation of the Code is required. Otherwise, it would be rendered almost meaningless, as an officer could always say they couldn't know if this was the type of incident that required them to take particulars. In other words, they must have been expected to exercise a certain amount of discretion in these circumstances.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

When you write "outed as a suspect" are you referring to PC Mizen? Or have a completely misunderstood?

no sorry, not writing clear, just got up when i posted is only excuse.
I meant before Lechmere, Mizen has never been a suspect has far as I know

Interestingly, I've found a thread in which David argued that PC Mizen would not have been in breach of police regulations by failing to take names and addresses: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-8561.html

However, whilst that might be technically correct, in light of what subsequently transpired it may be that his superiors would have taken a dim view of his failure to interrogate the men more closely. Or at least that could have been PC Mizen's conclusion.

I agree John, procedurally he may have followed guidelines, but that would not be how it may appear in the press, his superiors may not have wanted such trouble, he may well have supposed.


Steve

[John G]

Indeed you maybe correct if it happened the way he said.
The story he told would therefore be to cover a multitude of "sins". By saying he was requested no one asked those questions did they? It worked until he was outed as a suspect did it not?

Steve

Hi Steve,

When you write "outed as a suspect" are you referring to PC Mizen? Or have I completely misunderstood?

Interestingly, I've found a thread in which David argued that PC Mizen would not have been in breach of police regulations by failing to take names and addresses: http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-8561.html

However, whilst that might be technically correct, in light of what subsequently transpired it may be that his superiors would have taken a dim view of his failure to interrogate the men more closely. Or at least that could have been PC Mizen's conclusion.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

But my argument is: how could he be certain that he was being told the truth about being wanted by another policeman? Wouldn't he still be expected to take some basic details, or even ask the men to accompany him when he responds?

Anyway, as I said, I look forward to reading your final analysis on this issue.

Indeed you maybe correct if it happened the way he said.
The story he told would therefore be to cover a multitude of "sins". By saying he was requested no one asked those questions did they? It worked until he was outed as a suspect did it not?

Steve

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425235]

on the first issue, if he was told another policeman had sent them , he could reasonably assume that such details ha d already been taken.

However there is more to the argument than simply not taking of names.

The press could have made his life very bad, if the version i hold to had come out.


Steve

Hi Steve,

But my argument is: how could he be certain that he was being told the truth about being wanted by another policeman? Wouldn't he still be expected to take some basic details, or even ask the men to accompany him when he responds?

Anyway, as I said, I look forward to reading your final analysis on this issue.

[harry]

Pierre,
I do not have to ignore anything.I do not know the truth,but I do have a reasonable belief that Mizen realised,at some time,he would have to report his meeting with two carmen,and that his failure to note their names or contact details,would have to be explained.Especially if,and this is what I also believe,they mentioned to him,a woman was either drunk or dead in Bucks Row.

[David Orsam]

Mizen would not gain anything from constructing a lie about another PC being in place in Buckīs Row. I refer to David.

My dear boy, I am literally overcome with emotion.

[Elamarna]

Pierre back to old times.

I do not accept Lechmere saw the killer dressed as a policeman.
If you have independent sources to suggest such then you may have a point.

2. Paul was lying in the newspaper. He told the journalist that the PC continued knocking up. That Paul was lying is easy to establish given the strong tendencies in the source and given the fact that Mizen said that it was not true that he continued the knocking up except for one or finishing the last one. So Paul was the liar and Mizen noted that by saying what Paul said was not true. And this is strongly corroborated by the tendencies when Paul is interviewed.

However Paul is not specific about how many he may have knocked up. Indeed he says

"He continued calling the people up"

Which can be viewed as the same people he was calling when he was approached rather than people in general..
Therefore the one Mizen accepts is enough for the account to be truthful. Paul is not a liar on that issue, it is also backed by Lechmere that he did one . All 3 agree he did not stop as soon as he was told.

3. Mizen would not gain anything from constructing a lie about another PC being in place in Buckīs Row. I refer to David. Lechmere would gain a lot in his own understanding. And he did not give his whole name which corroborates his denial about having given the statement to Mizen.

I disagree Mizen gained much. No investigation of his actions. Reputation and job intact.
Yes I know David has pointed out issues. I feel those can be successfully debated.

But a witness who has seen a killer has the problem of the killer having seen the witness, so the reason for giving the name Cross was not his own protection. To acchieve his own protection he had to forget what he saw. And that is what he did at the inquest.

It goes back to had he seen and been seen?
Do you have sources to back such up?
If not then the hypothesis is lacking in evidence. Now it is an interesting hypothesis but there seems little at present which can confirm it or indeed disprove it.

Paul lied to the press. Paul was not a truthful person. The sources where Paul speakes are full of tendencies. The sources therefore are no reliable sources.

Yes they are, there is no denying that. However I feel parts of the Lloyds article can still be useful.
I only take notice when such is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

Lechmere struggled to tell the truth under oath. He couldnīt.

I do not think so. But present the evidence when you are ready and I will happily reconsider.

Given that I am in the same position as you about not disclosing information before I am ready, we are unlikely to agree on this at present.

Cheers
Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425234]

That does not mean it was not given, as we both know the press reports are not exact. However you are right, one cannot build an hypothesis on such, and i do not try to

One is not ignoring it, at least not in my main work, here i have just put it on the side burner for now, one can't discuss all every time.

We do not know. you suggested in the past from the killer, others suggest from the authorities. If you were able to elaborate on your idea then we would have a possible reason.

Steve,

Here is an elaboration. Hypothesis: Cross did not want to lie at the inquest. Sources show us: He reported one of his correct names. Conclusion: Lechmere told the inquest half the truth about his name.

Hypothesis: Cross had a limited space for his statements at the inquest. He was sworn. So he did not want to lie. Same source shows this. He did tell half the truth.

But according to Mizen, Cross said something and Cross denied having said it. Hypothesis: the denial was a lie.

Testing it:

1. Lechmere left out half the truth. As you said yourself, he had one other occasion when his name was given as Cross and that was when he was young. At all the other occasions he was Lechmere.

Lechmere had a small frame of possible statements at the inquest. To give the name Cross seems so strange to some people that they have managed to build a whole so called theory on it, leading them to interpret everything about the carman as possible indications that the carman was a killer and not just any killer, but Jack the Ripper.

But together with the statement of Mizen his statement is easy to explain:

Lechmere saw the killer and did not understand this when he told Mizen he was wanted by a policeman in Buckīs Row.

Evidence: He did tell Mizen about it. But at the inquest he took it back.

2. Paul was lying in the newspaper. He told the journalist that the PC continued knocking up. That Paul was lying is easy to establish given the strong tendencies in the source and given the fact that Mizen said that it was not true that he continued the knocking up except for one or finishing the last one. So Paul was the liar and Mizen noted that by saying what Paul said was not true. And this is strongly corroborated by the tendencies when Paul is interviewed.

3. Mizen would not gain anything from constructing a lie about another PC being in place in Buckīs Row. I refer to David. Lechmere would gain a lot in his own understanding. And he did not give his whole name which corroborates his denial about having given the statement to Mizen.

Of course he is easily traceable having given both home and work place.

But his wife and children would not be easily traceable. The neighbours must have been in the position of knowing the Lechmere family as the Cross family to be able to direct someone asking for that family to them.

And the neighbours must have been in the position of knowing Lechmere as Cross to be able to direct someone to him. But a witness who has seen a killer has the problem of the killer having seen the witness, so the reason for giving the name Cross was not his own protection. To acchieve his own protection he had to forget what he saw. And that is what he did at the inquest.

...while the Lloyds article is unreliable in many places, particularly where Paul puts himself at the forefront of events or criticizes the police, it never the less does provide corroboration for actions of both Lechmere and Mizen, and their inquest statements at various points similarly provide corroboration for Paul.

Paul lied to the press. Paul was not a truthful person. The sources where Paul speakes are full of tendencies. The sources therefore are no reliable sources.

Lechmere struggled to tell the truth under oath. He couldnīt.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;425227]

Hi Steve,

Look forward to reading your take on things. My issue is why would being told he was wanted my another officer exonerate him from a failure to take down basic details? And if it doesn't, why not give a version closer to the truth?

on the first issue, if he was told another policeman had sent them , he could reasonably assume that such details ha d already been taken.

However there is more to the argument than simply not taking of names.

The press could have made his life very bad, if the version i hold to had come out.


Steve

[Elamarna]

1. We know that the name Lechmere is nowhere in the press. It is a well established fact.


2. Absence of sources is not a reason for imagining a source on which to build an hypothesis.

That does not mean it was not given, as we both know the press reports are not exact.
However you are right, one cannot build an hypothesis on such, and i do not try to

Otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere. But not in the press from the Nichols inquest and not in the police papers. Cross. Not "Cross, otherwise Lechmere".

And as you are pointing out here, that is the only occurence in the sources of Cross except from the source for young Charles Cross.

So again, why Cross, and not as others did, stating the whole truth, in his case: "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

We do not need to ignore this question for fear of supporting the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

One is not ignoring it, at least not in my main work, here i have just put it on the side burner for now, one can't discuss all every time.

Obviously, yes. One step forward to a motive...he wished to use it in order to...- what?


You mean motive.


And what people is he trying to make himself and his family invisible to? His wife, kids, mother?

Or "all other people" who did not know the name Cross?And why?

We do not know. you suggested in the past from the killer, others suggest from the authorities. If you were able to elaborate on your idea then we would have a possible reason.

Of course he is easily traceable having given both home and work place.

I just say from the press and public in general,

Or do you think he wanted to harm himself or his family? Was Cross not a rational subject wanting to acchieve the best possible outcome? Any sources for that?

No not at all.

Yes, there are sources for that. He was aware of the importance of being sworn when testifying. We know this since he did not call himself Smith. We know this since he gave his true addresses. So Cross was not a false name, just as you say. It was just half the truth. Why? What did he gain from it? Since there is good evidence he was a rational subject.

Anonymity for his family, and maybe himself, but he could be traced by someone if they really wanted to.

And Paul came to the inquest day 3, after Mizen and after Cross. And he was not asked.

Therefore we can not expect any corroboration. So what we have is the statements of Mizen. And Cross.

I disagree, while the Lloyds article is unreliable in many places, particularly where Paul puts himself at the forefront of events or criticizes the police, it never the less does provide corroboration for actions of both Lechmere and Mizen, and their inquest statements at various points similarly provide corroboration for Paul.

You now "believe" your own construction the "white lie" on the part of Mizen. And Fisherman believes his own construction the "black lie" on the part of Lechmere.

And here is the theoretical symmetry in itīs perfection. White against black. Steve against Fisherman.

To Ignore the possibility would be wrong, let others decide if they think it as merit. however if others do not agree I am happy to revert to my previous postilion of a simply misunderstanding.

Are you a free thinker, Steve? I do think you are. And you do have integrity, I have seen it here many times. And therefore it will be very interesting to see your results, on which you are working so hard it seems, and when they are published here I do hope, but who am I to hope, they are not just a negative of the so called theory of Fisherman.
White King against Black King. Mizen against Cross. Steve against Fisherman.

I sincerely hope not myself, am not looking to be negative to Fish, however such is the by product in some areas.

The very point that this take on the Scam started out completely differently leads me to hope i am seeking a possible truth rather than just arguing for the sake of it.
In short it began when looking at alternative beats for Neil and how such would affect the arrival times of both he and Mizen at the murder site.

This lead me to question just how fast Mizen responded, it was only when working on the testimony of Neil that the light flashed at me so to speak.
which resulted in further research to see if such a proposal was even possible.

Sources about historical carman Lechmere being the catalyst of social bias in 2017.

And there is the past talking to us from the pages of the press. What does it mean?

Cheers, Pierre

Not being an historian i hope others will help on that one


steve

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425221]

i see your issue, the effect of saying he is wanted by another officer takes the onus away from the questions he does not want asked, thats the issue to me.
and of course just saying there's a woman lying does not excuse him from taking down some basic details.

i hope it will be clearer soon.


steve

Hi Steve,

Look forward to reading your take on things. My issue is why would being told he was wanted my another officer exonerate him from a failure to take down basic details? And if it doesn't, why not give a version closer to the truth?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425202]

One could say that we do not know what name he actually gave, the wording of such is not recorded in the press reports, one example of why the original transcript would be useful.

1. We know that the name Lechmere is nowhere in the press. It is a well established fact.

2. Absence of sources is not a reason for imagining a source on which to build an hypothesis.

However one cannot build a case on maybes, well one can but you don't get far.

Or on none existing sources.

So my opinion is that Cross was not a false name, he had been officially recorded under it at one point. indeed if we looked at that census return we could end up asking what happened to young Charles Cross, if not for the Nichols murder.

Otherwise Lechmere. Always Lechmere. But not in the press from the Nichols inquest and not in the police papers. Cross. Not "Cross, otherwise Lechmere".

And as you are pointing out here, that is the only occurence in the sources of Cross except from the source for young Charles Cross.

So again, why Cross, and not as others did, stating the whole truth, in his case: "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

We do not need to ignore this question for fear of supporting the theory of Lechmere being Jack the Ripper.

It was a name he wished to use at that point,

Obviously, yes. One step forward to a motive...he wished to use it in order to...- what?

the reason for such being unknown,

You mean motive.

but maybe just to keep his family out of the spotlight of the press.

And what people is he trying to make himself and his family invisible to? His wife, kids, mother?

Or "all other people" who did not know the name Cross?

And why?

i see nothing sinister in the use of the name.

Sinister meaning harmful or evil. No. On the contrary. What we have here is sources indicating a rational subject in the past. Rational choice. So Cross did not have a sinister motive.

He had the best motive he could have.

Or do you think he wanted to harm himself or his family? Was Cross not a rational subject wanting to acchieve the best possible outcome? Any sources for that?

Yes, there are sources for that. He was aware of the importance of being sworn when testifying. We know this since he did not call himself Smith. We know this since he gave his true addresses. So Cross was not a false name, just as you say. It was just half the truth. Why? What did he gain from it? Since there is good evidence he was a rational subject.

Indeed most of the rest of his testimony is corroborated by Paul, or even in some places by Mizen. There is no corroboration for Mizen on this particular issue of being wanted by another policeman.

And Paul came to the inquest day 3, after Mizen and after Cross. And he was not asked.

Therefore we can not expect any corroboration. So what we have is the statements of Mizen. And Cross.

Of course there is more which leads me to believe that Mizen told what was for him a white lie, that is it was not aimed to do any harm to any other person.

You now "believe" your own construction the "white lie" on the part of Mizen. And Fisherman believes his own construction the "black lie" on the part of Lechmere.

And here is the theoretical symmetry in itīs perfection. White against black. Steve against Fisherman.

Are you a free thinker, Steve? I do think you are. And you do have integrity, I have seen it here many times. And therefore it will be very interesting to see your results, on which you are working so hard it seems, and when they are published here I do hope, but who am I to hope, they are not just a negative of the so called theory of Fisherman.

As for Mizen, the lie if it was one was purely to protect himself from public ridicule and possible disciplinary action. it in no way had any effect on the outcome of the inquest, or the reputations of others until Lechmere was suggested has a suspect in recent years.

White King against Black King. Mizen against Cross. Steve against Fisherman.

Sources about historical carman Lechmere being the catalyst of social bias in 2017.

And there is the past talking to us from the pages of the press. What does it say?

Cheers, Pierre

[John G]

And here's what appears to be a detailed map from 1850: http://london1850.com/crossnb.htm And Bakers Row is still there!

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;425217]

Hi Steve,

Yes, its obviously possible he had no intention of responding, until he was possibly signalled by PC Neil.
However, in any subsequent lie, intended to indicate that he did take Cross and Paul's information seriously, and responded accordingly, I'm struggling to see why "woman lying down seriously injured" is any less of an explanation than "wanted by another officer", particularly as the former is much closer to the actual truth.

i see your issue, the effect of saying he is wanted by another officer takes the onus away from the questions he does not want asked, thats the issue to me.
and of course just saying there's a woman lying does not excuse him from taking down some basic details.

i hope it will be clearer soon.


steve