Leaving one's beat

[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!

[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

[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]

[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 Buck´s Row?

They didn´t, 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 Buck´s 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]

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 Buck´s Row?

They didn´t, 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 Buck´s 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;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]

[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;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 Buck´s Row asking for assistance.

Pierre

[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 Buck´s 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

[Elamarna]

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

Pierre,

Of course not however given Neil's Saturday testimony it is clear at that point he had no knowledge of the story Mizen was going to tell 2 days later.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wanted to join the thread but I have to admit to being a little(ok, more than a little) baffled. Can I just ask a couple of questions? You may not want to answer as you've been over this ground so I'll understand.

1. Pierre, are you suggesting that CL saw a policeman with the victim (making him the killer)?
2. If so, why didn't he mention it to Paul or anyone else for that matter?
3. What leads you to believe these things?

I'm not criticising your opinions here Pierre I'm just trying to get an overall picture of how you've formed them. I am having a very 'distracting' time at the moment so I have to admit that I'm probably not following some threads as closely or with as much thought as I'd like to (that's my excuse anyway )

[Trevor Marriott]

Pierre,

Of course not however given Neil's Saturday testimony it is clear at that point he had no knowledge of the story Mizen was going to tell 2 days later.

Steve

Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

They were not to know that 129 years later the testimony would be looked at and scrutinised in the way it is today. Its a shame because from my perspective there are many important and probing questions which in my opinion could, and should have been asked of some of the witnesses in all of the murder inquests, had that have taken place, the way we look at this mystery 129 years later may have been totally different to how it is viewed by many.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;426173]

Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

Hi Trevor,

I agree with you.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

An hypothesis about lying should be backed by data from the case. We know that Lechmere called himself Cross at this particular event but otherwise Lechmere. Therefore he told half the truth. This is support for his statement that he did not tell Mizen he saw a policeman in Buck´s Row. He took it back and therefore he was not telling the truth.

There is nothing supporting an hypothesis that PC Mizen did not tell the truth.

They had the knowledge that no one of their PC:s was the policeman seen by Cross. And that knowledge did not contradict the statement of Mizen. Therefore, there is no support of the hypothesis that Mizen lied or misunderstood.

Especially not when the explanatory power lies in the support for Cross not being entirely honest at the inquest. But people are afraid of stating that Cross was not honest, since that notion is so contaminated by the Lechmere idea.

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

And it was absolutely clear to them that none of their policemen had asked Cross for assistance in Buck´s Row! So that was that.

And Lechmere gained a lot by coming to the inquest. He got the chance to declare in the papers that he had not seen a policeman in Buck´s Row.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
I personally think to much is being read into these ambiguities which have arisen, not only on this thread but with regards to other inquest testimony relative to some of the other victims.

As we know the purpose of an inquest was to simply determine the cause of death, which would encompass the facts leading up to that death. These witnesses clearly went to the courts and gave their evidence in good faith. Did any of them lie, if they did for what purpose, and what was there to be gained by lying, or did they just tell it as it was?

Hi Trevor, much of that is possibly true.

When I post full details of my view on Mizen, you will see where I am coming from and possible reasons for lying.
You may not agree with the conclusion given, but the reasoning will I hope be sound and it will be backed by evidence.

Its not as if any evidence given in any of the inquests was going to get anyone hung, as there was never anyone arrested, or in the frame for the murders. I am sure the courts could see these ambiguities as the testimony was given but clearly decided not to expand on them to the point of clarification.

They were not to know that 129 years later the testimony would be looked at and scrutinised in the way it is today. Its a shame because from my perspective there are many important and probing questions which in my opinion could, and should have been asked of some of the witnesses in all of the murder inquests, had that have taken place, the way we look at this mystery 129 years later may have been totally different to how it is viewed by many.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again that is well within reason.
The ambiguities has you call them, generally do not have a direct impact on the Murders, at least in the Nichols case. And has is obvious from my research we should not place too much emphasis on particularly words or phrases as it is clear much of what we have is not word perfect by any means.

I am moving on to the official police reports in the next few days, it would be good to have your comments given your experience.

Cheers

Steve

[Elamarna]

There is nothing supporting an hypothesis that PC Mizen did not tell the truth.


They had the knowledge that no one of their PC:s was the policeman seen by Cross. And that knowledge did not contradict the statement of Mizen. Therefore, there is no support of the hypothesis that Mizen lied or misunderstood.

There certainly is supporting data that his report was not accepted as an accurate account of what happened.

Especially not when the explanatory power lies in the support for Cross not being entirely honest at the inquest. But people are afraid of stating that Cross was not honest, since that notion is so contaminated by the Lechmere idea.



And it was absolutely clear to them that none of their policemen had asked Cross for assistance in Buck´s Row! So that was that.

And Lechmere gained a lot by coming to the inquest. He got the chance to declare in the papers that he had not seen a policeman in Buck´s Row.

Pierre

And I say to you again my Friend, that apart from Mizen's disputed statement, which it appears his own superiors were less than enamoured, there really is nothing to support Lechmere seeing a man in a uniform in Bucks Row is there?

At present we seem to have 4 theories at least:

1. The policeman in Bucks Row, proposed to support a scam by Lechmere.
Apparently based on accepting Mizen's statement and disbelieveing Lechmere and disregarding Paul.
No other source based data to back such up.

2. The genuine misunderstanding.
Based on accepting that both Lechmere and Mizen told the truth, but again
No other source data to back it up.

3. Your take on the policeman idea.

Much as first, but with entirely different reasoning and motive.
At present no other source data, but possibly some to come at later date.

4. My as yet not fully disclosed theory.

Mizen did not tell the truth, there will be a reason supplied for this, indeed much of it already has been. Data supporting the motive for such is contained in the inquest testimony.
Data from several other sources which strongly suggest that senior officials did not accept Mizen's statement was accurate.

We must accept that there are insufficient sources which will ever allow us to reach a consensus view on this issue.


Steve