Leaving one's beat

[Joshua Rogan]

The name of the eastern end of Hanbury Street had indeed been Church Street in earlier days, Steve. I've seen it on different old maps.

Goad Vol XI sheet 324-1 names the eastern end as "Hanbury St (late Church St)"

[Elamarna]

Charles Booth's Poverty Map is an excellent geographical resource of the period: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/14/-0.1174/51.5064/100/0

It even has a search feature!

I agree John use it myself in conjunction with the OS maps and Goad

The church street I was talking about is older than the booth maps and a different one you mention.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Charles Booth's Poverty Map is an excellent geographical resource of the period: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/14/-0.1174/51.5064/100/0

It even has a search feature!

Thanks, John. I have a deluxe full set of Booth maps in "wall-chart" format, but that search feature is really handy. Ideal for browsing! (I never knew, until now, that there used to be a smallpox hospital on the site of today's Royal Free in Hampstead.)

[Elamarna]

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.

John, because he was concerned about his reputation. Without the Lloyds story he may have indeed told the truth with perhaps a minor spin. With it his hand was forced or take the consequences.

The different versions of events were not seen as a major issue it seems in 1888, and were not until the proposal of Lechmere as the killer. Then a minor issue is expanded to suggest Lechmere is lying.

I think it time to put those events back into perspective, and I will give the detailed argument for that in the coming months (part 3)
This thread is a great example of why I am not posting yet, ideas are flowing which need to be assessed fully before the final write-up is completed.

Steve

[John G]

Charles Booth's Poverty Map is an excellent geographical resource of the period: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/14/-0.1174/51.5064/100/0

It even has a search feature!

[John G]

The name of the eastern end of Hanbury Street had indeed been Church Street in earlier days, Steve. I've seen it on different old maps.

Church Street was in between Hanbury Street and Flower and Dean Street: https://booth.lse.ac.uk/map/16/-0.07...033.0,181900.0

[Elamarna]

>>I can be argued Neil did not blow his whistle has he knew there was a policeman end of street...<<

Without checking, I seem to remember there were specific police guide lines about blowing whistles in residential areas. Where's Monty when you need him?

Let me rephrase. He heard Thain and signalled as they could visually see each other. The whistle was not needed.

Steve

Steve

[FrankO]

I recall someone can't remember who responded to a post from David a few years back saying church street or road (memory fails me) was an older name for Eastern end of Hanbury street so Church Row could be a corruption of that or maybe a term for a road off of it.

The name of the eastern end of Hanbury Street had indeed been Church Street in earlier days, Steve. I've seen it on different old maps.

[FrankO]

>>And why would he trust such a story?<<

Particularly if such story was told by two men with no sense of urgency or with any specific reasoning, as Mizen claimed they did. And why didn't Mizen ask any questions? It's all quite strange.

I agree, Dusty. Some say Mizen did nothing wrong. Perhaps not in the sense of protocol. I believe Christer even stated at one point or another that Mizen had no choice but to rely on his fellow policeman (or words to that effect), but, I would say 'obviously', that’s not true. He had 2 men with him who had just arrived from the place and, according to his own account, they had told him very little. So, why not ask them a couple of questions while he had the men still with him? Where is she lying exactly? Was the policeman already there when you arrived? What did he say exactly? Did you get a good look at the woman yourselves? Did she seem drunk to you? Did she talk? Was she moving? Could you see if she was hurt/sick?

[John G]

But surely even on the basis of being told there was another constable who wanted to speak to him he would have been expected to take place their names. I mean, what if he gets to Bucks Row and PC Neil says, "Don't know what you're talking about mate, I think you might have Bern had. I suppose you got their names though." " Ah, well, now you mention it..."

Of course, if they were up to no good they're not likely to give their real names anyway. Maybe Cross would have told him he was called Lechmere! But in that case, why make up the story about being told he was wanted by another officer? Why not just tell the truth?

[Robert St Devil]

i think the answer could be in that ballpark harry.

consider cross and paul's reaction if, in fact, they had been sent by pc neil. he's just shined his bulls eye lantern on her corpse so now cross and paul know for damned sure this woman has been murdered. do they rush to raise the alert? do they press the severity of the crime onto pc mizen? would they walk their way to work, happening to mention to the first constable they see that a constable needs to see him in bucks row but failing to mention the part about a womans throat being slashed?

[harry]

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.

[Robert St Devil]

that's where i'm stuck john and steve. if cross and paul hadn't come forward, would pc mizen still have been called before the inquest?

his moment on the stand is a blurb thats mostly about confirming and contradicting paul's story as evidenced by his denial of continuing to knock up (this stated even before cross or paul is called before the inquest jury!) remove the carmen aspect from his statement and what are you left with... nothing because he provides little to nothing.

it starting to seem like there was an aspect of spin control going on in line with reputation, not conspiracy. its not a heavy fault tho. on aug 30th jack the ripper does not exist in Whitechapel. there was no way for pc mizen to know that his conversation with cross and paul would lead him to the mutilated corpse of Polly Nichols. its only after the severity of the crime is discovered that everyone's actions become accountable.

[drstrange169]

Nothing else to add, I just noticed I was on 899 posts and wanted to get to 900;-)

[drstrange169]

>>I can be argued Neil did not blow his whistle has he knew there was a policeman end of street...<<

Without checking, I seem to remember there were specific police guide lines about blowing whistles in residential areas. Where's Monty when you need him?