Leaving one's beat

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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,

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]

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]

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 an 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.

John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.


Steve

[John G]

John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I'm sure you're right. And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had, indeed, taken place.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Yes, I'm sure you're right. And, of course, I was wrong in my earlier post: based upon a literal interpretation of the Police Code he was negligent in failing to take particulars as a crime had taken place.

Yes Hindsight was the cause of much of the issue with Mizen, when the Carmen approached he could not know a crime had been committed, but it would have been useful to take details just in case.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

John,

I think the issue Mizen may have faced was a possible perception of failure in many, not only one, area.
Indeed but for his testimony on Monday 1st, there may well have been press claims on the 2nd, of not just incompetence, but negligence, whether such was justified or not.

It maybe it is not what he did or did not do, but how he may have considered the press would report such, and the public react.

Hi Steve,
What makes you think the press would have attacked Mizen? PC Long's failure to follow up properly on the apron piece was arguably far more serious, yet aside from the direct inquest coverage he doesn't seem to have attracted the ire of the press or public, nor was he reprimanded, as far as we know.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
What makes you think the press would have attacked Mizen? PC Long's failure to follow up properly on the apron piece was arguably far more serious, yet aside from the direct inquest coverage he doesn't seem to have attracted the ire of the press or public, nor was he reprimanded, as far as we know.

Hi Joshua,

fair question.
I think that is down to how we view the two incidents, its interpretation is it not?
I do not consider Long did that much wrong, however my take on Mizen is that he did far more which could be portrayed as being wrong.
The Lloyds article sets the tone, be it right or wrong, for this purpose it reliability is not important, it was highly critical of the police, particularly Mizen, suggesting incompetence and more.
If this was then viewed as being supported by Mizen's actions, following the meeting with the Carmen, we have an increasingly hostile climate, specifically relating to one police officer.

And just let me add, I think Mizen was not a bad man, just think he made an error of judgement.


Steve

[John G]

It makes you wonder what would have happened if Cross or Paul had failed to turn up at the inquest, and it was subsequently revealed that PC Mizen had exercised his discretion in favour of not taking particulars. Oh dear...