Leaving one's beat

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425206]

That is the issue john, did he respond to the information he was given.
also it would not cover his not taking down details. and while he may have got away with such, once he did not say such on the 31st, his hands were tied after the inquest on the 1st and by the lloyds report

Its interesting the more i discuss this the more confident i feel. and to think i almost tossed the idea away.


Steve

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.

[John G]

Not sure if this has been posted before but here's an extremely detailed map from 1868: http://london1868.com/weller32.htm

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=John G;425198]

Hi Steve,

Do you think it would have been a problem if he'd simply said that he'd been told there was a woman lying down seriously injured, possibly dead? And that he decided this was sufficient cause to merit a response?

That is the issue john, did he respond to the information he was given.
also it would not cover his not taking down details. and while he may have got away with such, once he did not say such on the 31st, his hands were tied after the inquest on the 1st and by the lloyds report

Its interesting the more i discuss this the more confident i feel. and to think i almost tossed the idea away.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Steve,

have you also considered the research David has done on the historical use of alternative names at inquests?

Cross did not mention that his other name was Lechmere, as did others in his situation.

Why did not Cross tell the court his name was "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

That was what we can call a lie or, if being more modest, not the whole truth.

And which hypothesis is the best one and why:

(1) that Cross did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have data

- or

(2) that Mizen did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have no data?

I know you can not say what you base your interpretation on, but why is the first hypothesis (1) not the best one for you?

Pierre

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.

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

It was a name he wished to use at that point, the reason for such being unknown, but maybe just to keep his family out of the spotlight of the press. i see nothing sinister in the use of the name.

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.

Of course there is more which leads me to believe that Mizen told what was for him a white lie, 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.


Steve

[Pierre]

Not ignore Pierre, just consider, analysis, question and hopefully explain away.

Steve

Steve,

have you also considered the research David has done on the historical use of alternative names at inquests?

Cross did not mention that his other name was Lechmere, as did others in his situation.

Why did not Cross tell the court his name was "Cross, otherwise Lechmere"?

That was what we can call a lie or, if being more modest, not the whole truth.

And which hypothesis is the best one and why:

(1) that Cross did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have data

- or

(2) that Mizen did not tell the whole truth, something for which we have no data?

I know you can not say what you base your interpretation on, but why is the first hypothesis (1) not the best one for you?

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425191]

yes but it would be his word against theirs, and could be written off as a misunderstand, as it seems it was.

Far better to have a dispute on those grounds, than one on other issues.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Do you think it would have been a problem if he'd simply said that he'd been told there was a woman lying down seriously injured, possibly dead? And that he decided this was sufficient cause to merit a response?

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve,

As Joshua points out the change in place names is a bit confusing, particularly as my sense of geography isn't great anyway. Managed to find Bucks Row and Bakers Row eventually, right in the corner of that square of the map, but it took me a little while!

And I've just noticed that my post to Frank said "I've you looked", when it should have been "have you looked", of course. I'm beginning to hate predictive text!

me too. especially when on the mobile phone. today at present on laptop.

Steve

[John G]

Hi John,

Didnt have this one so great.
It shows Bakers Row as such in 1872, so still not clear how church street becomes Church Row, again possible misreporting.
.

And additionally no sign of a Campbell Street, so josh is probably correct it was a mistake by the reporter.


Steve

Thanks Steve,

As Joshua points out the change in place names is a bit confusing, particularly as my sense of geography isn't great anyway. Managed to find Bucks Row and Bakers Row eventually, right in the corner of that square of the map, but it took me a little while!

And I've just noticed that my post to Frank said "I've you looked", when it should have been "have you looked", of course. I'm beginning to hate predictive text!

[Elamarna]

And saying this you have to ignore all the problems with such an idea pointed out by David Orsam.

His dear boy Pierre

Not ignore Pierre, just consider, analysis, question and hopefully explain away.


Steve

[Pierre]

A possibility is that Mizen did not take Cross and Paul seriously,and had no intention of doing anything in relation to what was said,or of asking questions and taking names.However,to be absolutely sure,after finishing knocking up,he made a quick trip to the junction of Bucks Row,and seeing activity there,joined in.The question then was,how to explain his presence,his absence from his beat,and his failure to question Cross/Paul,and the simplest explanation w as to claim that the two Carmen had simply told him he was wanted by an officer in Bucks Row,or words to that effect,not that a woman might be dead.

And saying this you have to ignore all the problems with such an idea pointed out by David Orsam.

His dear boy Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;425189]

Hi Robert,



Indeed.

Pierre

yes but it would be his word against theirs, and could be written off as a misunderstand, as it seems it was.

Far better to have a dispute on those grounds, than one on other issues.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;425040]Hi Robert,

But if he wasn't being completely honest, why come up with a story about being wanted by another officer? I mean, in these circumstances he must have realized the men would contradict him.

Indeed.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Maybe Paul said it was the corner of Church Street and Baker's Row, and the reporter's pen ran out of ink in the middle of writing it?

As plausible as anything else

steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Agreed. Probably a local name or just miss heard and reported.

Maybe Paul said it was the corner of Church Street and Baker's Row, and the reporter's pen ran out of ink in the middle of writing it?

[Elamarna]

On the 1872 map just posted by John G, Baker's Row is named as such, so doesn't seem like this was ever Church Row.

Agreed. Probably a local name or just miss heard and reported.


Steve