Leaving one's beat

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426161][QUOTE=Elamarna;426154]

Absence of evidence is not evidence. But you already know this.



So the police and the coroner made a decision.

The decision was that Mizen misunderstood and that Cross told the truth.

They thought so because:

None of their own PC:s had been in Buckīs Row asking for assistance.

Pierre

Probably correct Pierre.

The issue you have is that there is no data other than Mizen's own statement to consider there was someone in Bucks Row.

As I have previously said the theory is intriguing, but there is no data other than Mizen's statement, which may have been produced for specific reasons, to support it.

When you publish and if you can show the man you suspect had access to police uniforms then your theory will be considerably stengthed.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426154][QUOTE=Pierre;426149]

Mizen's testimony is not key to my intreptation any more than Lechmere's is.
Mizen could not be asked to counter the testimony of Lechmere as he was called first.
Lechmere denied the policeman story after Mizen presented it.
There is no record of it anywhere until the inquest.

Absence of evidence is not evidence. But you already know this.

He could have been recalled, but was not.
One assumes it was at this point that any investigation was carried out.
And one can assume that a decision was reached before Paul appeared . And certainly before the POLICE reports.

So the police and the coroner made a decision.

The decision was that Mizen misunderstood and that Cross told the truth.

They thought so because:

None of their own PC:s had been in Buckīs Row asking for assistance.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426149]

They had the following choices:

1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

I left out 3 has your post suggested they had no sources to back that view other than Mizen's own statement, however if I misunderstood fair enough.

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: The coroner or someone in the jury asked him about the misunderstanding. No.
2. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about lying. No.
3. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.

Or do you prefer this model:


1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
2. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
3. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about telling the truth. No.

Pierre

Mizen's testimony is not key to my intreptation any more than Lechmere's is.
Mizen could not be asked to counter the testimony of Lechmere as he was called first.
Lechmere denied the policeman story after Mizen presented it.
There is no record of it anywhere until the inquest.

He could have been recalled, but was not.
One assumes it was at this point that any investigation was carried out.
And one can assume that a decision was reached before Paul appeared . And certainly before the POLICE reports.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426143]

They had two choices :

either Mizen had misunderstood.

Or

He had lied.
Misunderstand is far easier to accept and causes less problems.

They had the following choices:

1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: The coroner or someone in the jury asked him about the misunderstanding. No.
2. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about lying. No.
3. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.

Or do you prefer this model:


1. Mizen had misunderstood
2. Mizen lied
3. Mizen told the truth

Consequences visible in the sources given these alternatives: Yes/No:

1: Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
2. Absence of questions about it to Mizen. Yes.
3. The coroner or someone in the jury asking him about telling the truth. No.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

By this, do you mean that they acted against their own will?

And was the lack of acceptance against their own will?

No not at all. You asked why did they not want to accept . Which to me implies they had view not to accept what he said before investigating. I was saying it was not a want but the outcome of investigation.
If that was not the meaning it is fine.

Yes, I agree. And did they find out that no one of their police constables had asked Cross for assistance in Buckīs Row?

They didnīt, obviously.

And they did not want to believe the contrary.

Which was?

They had two choices :

either Mizen had misunderstood.

Or

He had lied.
Misunderstand is far easier to accept and causes less problems.

So your hypothesis is that Mizen based the statement on belief. OK.

1. Why did not Mizen know at the inquest that there was no known police constable in Buckīs Row when Cross found her?

Because if he knew that he had understood that his belief was wrong.

That is not my Hypothesis, that has I understand it is the one David thinks is probable.
I believe that is what his superiors decided.

My hypothesis amounts to he knew there was no other officer mentioned; however mentioning such ensured other issues were not looked into.

Dear Steve, we can not know this, since we do not have the alternative situation, with sources from it, in the past. So the "effect" is what it is.

Pierre

You misunderstand my dear Pierre.
Let me elaborated.

If he was told another police officer wanted him or not it did not prevent him from leaving the Corner of Hanbury/Old Montague/Bakers and making his way in a reasonable time to Bucks Row.

The Alternative would be that he did not arrive. He did.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426129]

I don't think it's about "want".

By this, do you mean that they acted against their own will?

I belive there is evidence from the sources to suggest that did not accept his statement as accurate.

And was the lack of acceptance against their own will?

One can only assume they investigated and came to a conclusion based on what they found out.

Yes, I agree. And did they find out that no one of their police constables had asked Cross for assistance in Buckīs Row?

They didnīt, obviously.

And they did not want to believe the contrary.

No disciplinary action may have been deemed in order, if they decided he had believed he was told he was needed by another when he was not.

So your hypothesis is that Mizen based the statement on belief. OK.

Why did not Mizen know at the inquest that there was no known police constable in Buckīs Row when Cross found her?

Because if he knew that he had understood that his belief was wrong.

In addition whatever the "Truth" it had no material effect on Mizen's eventual arrived at the murder scene.

Dear Steve, we can not know this, since we do not have the alternative situation, with sources from it, in the past. So the "effect" is what it is.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

And why do you think the police did not want to place credence on what Mizen told them at the inquest?

Pierre

I don't think it's about "want".
I belive there is evidence from the sources to suggest that did not accept his statement as accurate.

One can only assume they investigated and came to a conclusion based on what they found out.

No disciplinary action may have been deemed in order, if they decided he had believed he was told he was needed by another when he was not.
In addition whatever the "Truth" it had no material effect on Mizen's eventual arrived at the murder scene.

Steve

[Pierre]

Robert

If you ignore the Carmen, you are left with a little more than you think..

I agree the POLICE has an institution possibly favoured Lechmere's version of event's; there are sources which suggest at least, that they placed little credence on Mizen's.

And it was irrelevant to the murder, unless that is Pierre's hypothesis is shown to be correct.


Steve

Hi Steve,

And why do you think the police did not want to place credence on what Mizen told them at the inquest?

Pierre

[David Orsam]

David,
There is evidence of what police officers in 1888 entered in their notebooks.Read related cases from that time.

Please don't tell me, vaguely, to "Read related cases". It just shows that you don't know of any and are making everything up as you go along.

It is also,from reading of old cases,possible to form an opinion of how departments operated,and in some cases, individual officers.

That is no doubt true but which old cases help us with the situation under discussion?

The evidence is there,do not accuse me of making things up.
So let me give you a general principle that covers what I have written.
It is,an employee has a responsibility to his employers to inform them of anything that relates to his employment.Mizen was an employee in the police department.Now you will not find that principle defined in the police code,but it was a principle that Mizen should have been aware of.It was a principle of law.

That is beyond ridiculous Harry. So now you are making up the law too!

[harry]

David,
There is evidence of what police officers in 1888 entered in their notebooks.Read related cases from that time.
It is also,from reading of old cases,possible to form an opinion of how departments operated,and in some cases, individual officers.
The evidence is there,do not accuse me of making things up.
So let me give you a general principle that covers what I have written.
It is,an employee has a responsibility to his employers to inform them of anything that relates to his employment.Mizen was an employee in the police department.Now you will not find that principle defined in the police code,but it was a principle that Mizen should have been aware of.It was a principle of law.

[David Orsam]

Not making anything up,David.The police code was an interpretation of the law that gave power to police officers.It directed officers how and when to act
I can give many instancies of police officers acting in circumstances that were not a breach of the law.You have stated one,accidents.
As to training,no I cannot refer to a training manual regarding the use of notebooks in 1888,can you?,but I can state from my own experience and training,that an officer should not rely on memory,but at the first opportunity commit conversations to writing, and obtain particulars of a person/persons giving information.I find it hard to understand that it would be any different in 1888.That is a primary reason notebooks were issued.

The problem, Harry, is that you have no experience of the training for an officer in 1888. Nor do you have any evidence of what they needed to put into their notebooks. That is why I say you are "making it up".

You are simply applying modern policing guidance to the nineteenth century which is wholly inappropriate.

I wouldn't mind but we have the Police Code for the period which tell us precisely in what circumstances an officer was required to take particulars: criminal case and accident.

[harry]

Not making anything up,David.The police code was an interpretation of the law that gave power to police officers.It directed officers how and when to act
I can give many instancies of police officers acting in circumstances that were not a breach of the law.You have stated one,accidents.
As to training,no I cannot refer to a training manual regarding the use of notebooks in 1888,can you?,but I can state from my own experience and training,that an officer should not rely on memory,but at the first opportunity commit conversations to writing, and obtain particulars of a person/persons giving information.I find it hard to understand that it would be any different in 1888.That is a primary reason notebooks were issued.

[Elamarna]

my thoughts on the matter are two-fold steve. the first, did pc mizen's accountability come into question only after the severity of the crime was realized? the second involves his presence at the inquest.

if you erase all the parts about the carmen out of his statement, the most that you are left with is:
i went for the ambulance.

would this scant account of his involvement have warranted coroner baxter calling him before the inquest jury had there been no carmen? i have my doubts.

he only seems to be at the inquest to refute paul's statement in the Lloyd's article, appearing dutiful rather than negligent. i dont think metro was worried as much about pc mizen's reputation as... their own. since metro was willing to let this discrepancy between lechmere and mizen slide without further investigation, it suggests to me that they favored lechmere's story or concluded that the argument was irrelevant to the case.

Robert

If you ignore the Carmen, you are left with a little more than you think..

I agree the POLICE has an institution possibly favoured Lechmere's version of event's; there are sources which suggest at least, that they placed little credence on Mizen's.

And it was irrelevant to the murder, unless that is Pierre's hypothesis is shown to be correct.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Mizen had an obligation to the department to report his actions.His training would have instilled a need to obtain particulars of the person/persons reporting.He had opportunity to do that.He had an issued notebook in which to record particulars.He didn't do so.He was in breach of his responsibilities.

The only problem with that, Harry, is you are making it all up.

It's not what the Police Code says. There was no requirement for him "to obtain particulars of person/persons reporting" in circumstances where they were not reporting a criminal offence nor an accident nor have you provided any evidence that this was something he was trained to do.

[Robert St Devil]

Harry & Robert,

It's a very good motive and very close to my view on the events. Although I take it a bit further.
There is no conspiracy as you say Robert, it just a man who has made a mistake, which had no material affect on the crime, trying to protect his reputation.

Steve

my thoughts on the matter are two-fold steve. the first, did pc mizen's accountability come into question only after the severity of the crime was realized? the second involves his presence at the inquest.

if you erase all the parts about the carmen out of his statement, the most that you are left with is:
i went for the ambulance.

would this scant account of his involvement have warranted coroner baxter calling him before the inquest jury had there been no carmen? i have my doubts.

he only seems to be at the inquest to refute paul's statement in the Lloyd's article, appearing dutiful rather than negligent. i dont think metro was worried as much about pc mizen's reputation as... their own. since metro was willing to let this discrepancy between lechmere and mizen slide without further investigation, it suggests to me that they favored lechmere's story or concluded that the argument was irrelevant to the case.