Leaving one's beat

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;426184

Data from several other sources which strongly suggest that senior officials did not accept Mizen's statement was accurate.

Indeed!

That is the first point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that anyone of their police constables asked Lechmere for assistance in Buck´s Row.

Because they did not.

And now the second point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that an unknown policeman asked Lechmere for assistance in Buck´s Row.

And obviously you have analyzed the sources and found this.

You know what the implication of the second point was for senior officials. Such could not be had. And therefore was not.

Poor Mizen.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;426184



Indeed!

That is the first point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that anyone of their police constables asked Lechmere for assistance in Buck´s Row.

Because they did not.

And now the second point. Senior officials did not accept the idea that an unknown policeman asked Lechmere for assistance in Buck´s Row.

And obviously you have analyzed the sources and found this.

You know what the implication of the second point was for senior officials. Such could not be had. And therefore was not.

Poor Mizen.

Cheers, Pierre

If there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer I fail to see why they would not want to expose such. I am afraid I do not buy into the conspiracy theory.
It seems quite ironic given your post on theories with regards to slaughter men.


And my friend while there are the sources to back my view, has you ackowledge by debating them above, there is no data, other than Mizen's statement, to support the idea you propose, is there?

Your hypothesis is based on the belief that Mizen had no reason to lie.
It is your intpretation and is no different from that of of the pro Lechmere people.
You make a choice based on your intpretation of Mizen and Lechmere, based on the completely subjective view of who is the least likely to lie.
However that means you have to write off actually data from the sources as the Police refusing to acknowledge the situation as you see it.


You make an interesting argument, However it is clear such cannot be supported by the data.

Of course that does not mean you are wrong, as like the pro Lechmere theory, while it cannot be proven, it is almost impossible to conclusively disprove.
You of course are well aware of this.

Cheers

Steve




Cheers

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426215]

If there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer

Dear Steve,

that was not the testimony of Mizen. I.e. Mizen did not state at the inquest that Cross told him there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer in Buck´s Row.

I fail to see why they would not want to expose such.

But there was nothing to expose. As you yourself say, they decided to believe Cross and to believe that Mizen misunderstood.

I am afraid I do not buy into the conspiracy theory.

But you do. There were loyalties and disloyalties and lies and truths told, according to yourself. Remember?

It seems quite ironic given your post on theories with regards to slaughter men.

With regards to slaughter men? What do you mean, Steve?

And my friend while there are the sources to back my view, has you ackowledge by debating them above, there is no data, other than Mizen's statement, to support the idea you propose, is there?

Just as you have not published your conclusions yet, I have yet to publish data.

Your hypothesis is based on the belief that Mizen had no reason to lie.

No, it is based on the hypothesis that Cross had a motive for lying.

It is your intpretation and is no different from that of of the pro Lechmere people.

It is very different, Steve. I do not claim that Cross was the killer, just a witness.

You make a choice based on your intpretation of Mizen and Lechmere, based on the completely subjective view of who is the least likely to lie.

The interpretation is not based on a view. The view is partly (a very small part) based on interpretation, which is based on comparison. You saw it.

However that means you have to write off actually data from the sources as the Police refusing to acknowledge the situation as you see it.

Absolutely not. They had their motives for doing it the way they did.

You make an interesting argument, However it is clear such cannot be supported by the data.

The data is there. And you have said we shall wait for your theory. I therefore do not tell you that there is no theory. I wait. Gladly.

Of course that does not mean you are wrong, as like the pro Lechmere theory, while it cannot be proven, it is almost impossible to conclusively disprove.

I don´t know why you say it is almost impossible to disprove.

There is nothing connecting Lechmere to any other murder. The only thing connecting him to 31st August is the finding of Nichols on the site nearest his home.

That is sufficient to disprove it.

But people have become so used to reading poor so called theories that they believe that is all there can be.

But it isn´t.

You of course are well aware of this.

Dear Steve, I am well aware of my responsibility. That is why I am taking a little time now to produce texts, a few pages and chapters when I have the time, outside of this forum.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426221]

Dear Steve,

that was not the testimony of Mizen. I.e. Mizen did not state at the inquest that Cross told him there was a person impersonating a London Police Officer in Buck´s Row.

No he did not but said

You know what the implication of the second point was for senior officials. Such could not be had. And therefore was not.


I took that to infer the alternative was itt was someone dressed in a police uniform. If such a man was not a London Police Officer he was therefore impersonating one, or have I misunderstood uou
that the POLICE knew one of there men had not spoken to Lechmere and did not wanr

But there was nothing to expose. As you yourself say, they decided to believe Cross and to believe that Mizen misunderstood.


Steve

[Elamarna]

But there was nothing to expose. As you yourself say, they decided to believe Cross and to believe that Mizen misunderstood.

Yes it was the easier option to take .
If they decided one of the two actually lied, they would have to take further action.


But you do. There were loyalties and disloyalties and lies and truths told, according to yourself. Remember?

Maybe you missed the posts where I made it clear that I was putting forward a myriad of idea, many of which I did not actually agree with, to see what feedback there was.



With regards to slaughter men? What do you mean, Steve?

You suggested I was inventing conspiracy to cover for not having an answer for how Train's cape arrived in Winthrop Street, and to a degree I was, however I have a very clear view of how it probably got there, no conspiracies at all.

Has I said I was trying out wild ideas to get a response.


Steve

[Pierre]

You suggested I was inventing conspiracy to cover for not having an answer for how Train's cape arrived in Winthrop Street, and to a degree I was, however I have a very clear view of how it probably got there, no conspiracies at all.

Has I said I was trying out wild ideas to get a response.


Steve

Thanks for an honest answer. I think you have some hypothesis about the cape being some key to an understanding for why Mizen, as in your hypothesis, would have lied.

I think you have been trying to estimate minutes for the beats. But it is not reliable.

I think maybe you think the guy Tomkins was picked as a witness since he was not in the slaughter house at the point in time when the cape was left there. So he did not know the name of the PC who left it.

Tomkins was testifying day 2 when Neil and Thain was not at the inquest.

I think you think that Tomkins had Neil and Thain mixed up. Loyalty was to Neil from Mizen and Thain. Neil did not find Nichols after Cross and Paul. Mizen came to the site and Nichols was lying there but Neil was not there when he should have been.

Mizen lied and said there was a PC (meaning Neil) at the murder site to protect Neil.

Did Neil leave the cape at the slaughterhouse? Did he fetch it? Was it his cape?

I am just guessing.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426221]

No, it is based on the hypothesis that Cross had a motive for lying.

Ok point accepted. But that goes hand in hand with you failure to see a motive for Mizen to lie

It is very different, Steve. I do not claim that Cross was the killer, just a witness.

The conclusion is indeed different but the reasoning process is very similar

The interpretation is not based on a view. The view is partly (a very small part) based on interpretation, which is based on comparison. You saw it.

It does not really matter what terms we use to say how we arrive at the conclusion, it remains a choice and it is subjective

Absolutely not. They had their motives for doing it the way they did.

Again it's a subjective conclusion. One can find a motive for anything, which was part of the purpose of some of the ideas floated on the slaughter men.



Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Steve,

CL and Paul both had a good reason to lie to Mizen. Neither wanted to be late for work and so naturally wouldn't have wanted to hang around (they were both already late.) Of course I'm not claiming this to be a fact but it has to be at least a possibility.

[Elamarna]

The data is there. And you have said we shall wait for your theory. I therefore do not tell you that there is no theory. I wait. Gladly.

As do I for yours. And I do not deny your theory, I say several times that I find it interesting, and I have told you before that I consider the basic on the idea about the policeman has valid as any. .

I don´t know why you say it is almost impossible to disprove.

There is nothing connecting Lechmere to any other murder. The only thing connecting him to 31st August is the finding of Nichols on the site nearest his home.

That is sufficient to disprove it.

I disagree, it makes it highly unlikely, but it does not disprove.
We may be disagreeing here over the use of words rather than basic concepts, I am not sure.

But people have become so used to reading poor so called theories that they believe that is all there can be.

But it isn´t.

I agree



Dear Steve, I am well aware of my responsibility. That is why I am taking a little time now to produce texts, a few pages and chapters when I have the time, outside of this forum.

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre, if it came across I was having a dig such was not my intention.
I happily wait for you to finish, how ever long it takes.
If you are correct great, if not we'll that life, however the debates will be enlightening and of a high standard I am sure.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks for an honest answer. I think you have some hypothesis about the cape being some key to an understanding for why Mizen, as in your hypothesis, would have lied.

No the cape has no relevance to Mizen at all.

I think you have been trying to estimate minutes for the beats. But it is not reliable.

That depends on how one looks at it. We have statements from various officers about how long their beats took, these are however not pricise, only rough estimates.

I have looked to see if said times fit roughly with those beats.
It is not exact, as the officers themselves say, but it seems to confirm the beats.

I think maybe you think the guy Tomkins was picked as a witness since he was not in the slaughter house at the point in time when the cape was left there. So he did not know the name of the PC who left it.

Not at all. I think he knew very well when it was left and who by.
I also think any lies told had nothing to do with the Murder.

Tomkins was testifying day 2 when Neil and Thain was not at the inquest.

I think you think that Tomkins had Neil and Thain mixed up. Loyalty was to Neil from Mizen and Thain. Neil did not find Nichols after Cross and Paul. Mizen came to the site and Nichols was lying there but Neil was not there when he should have been.


Nope wrong again. I think he knew exactly who was who.
I have also heard that theory before, I see nothing to support it at all.


Mizen lied and said there was a PC (meaning Neil) at the murder site to protect Neil.


No


Did Neil leave the cape at the slaughterhouse? Did he fetch it? Was it his cape?


Possibly, No and No.
I am just guessing.

Pierre

Pierre
I have never known you to be so wrong on something. You obviously have not understood that posting at all.
My view is that what may have happened at the slaughter house had nothing to do with the Murder at all. Untruths may have been told to cover up scams by the employees on the employer.

The shame was that the 3 men were initially targeted by the press. And were only cleared by the POLICE after the local officers spoke up for them.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

CL and Paul both had a good reason to lie to Mizen. Neither wanted to be late for work and so naturally wouldn't have wanted to hang around (they were both already late.) Of course I'm not claiming this to be a fact but it has to be at least a possibility.

It's possible.
However such does not have an impact on my ideas..
The story of being wanted by a policeman is only from after Neil's testimony on the 1st and probably after the Lloyds article of the 2nd.
I am more concerned with what happened according to the sources before then rather than what is said happened after.


Steve

[harry]

No David,I am not making anything up,nor are my comments ridiculous.The problem is,your understanding of the subject matter is lacking.You do not know as much as you pretend to.You therefor rely on personnel insults.
I know what Mizens training would have been, what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.My beliefs are based on that knowledge,and that belief is that Mizen lied,and that he failed in his obligations to record details of his encounter with Cross and Paul.Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.

[David Orsam]

Why do I believe that?Be cause I have studied the Police code for that time.

You can't even get your story straight Harry. On Thursday you told me:

"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."

Now you seem to have abandoned the claim that it was a principle of law and now are now saying that the principle IS in the police code despite having told me it isn't!

Prior to that you told me that your knowledge came "from my own experience and training" but now you say you know what Mizen's training would have been and what a policeman's obligations were in 1888.

You really are making it up as you go along Harry and this is not "personnel (sic) insults".

But if you are saying that a policeman's obligation in 1888 was to take particulars in non-criminal/non-accident cases please provide some authority. Because your own beliefs based on no evidence are not good enough.

[harry]

David,
A policeman was employed by the public service.They were his employers.He was in the police force.A policeman's powers were decided by laws.The police force operated under laws as did the public service.So a policeman had to have a working knowledge of all three,and could be affected by one,or all three at any one time.So a principle of law, while not defined in the police code,could still affect how a policeman acted.I could give you examples,but you'd claim I was making it up.
Now to training.
The three basics of training were/are ,Explanation,Demonstration,Participation.It hasn't changed from that time to this. What Mizen would have been trained in,was the requirements of the police code.The training included military style drills,powers of police officers, crowd and traffic controls,to name a few.Not very different from today.So yes,I can write from my own experiencies,as well as from knowledge of circumstances in 1888.
What do I judge Mizen on.It is a part of the police code of that time which reads,"He must report to his inspector or sergeant,the first time he sees either of them,the particulars of any accident or occurance which has come under notice"
AND
"Full particulars of all cases of accident,illness or injury in the streets,coming under notice of police,should be procured at the time"
Now you may argue that doesn't cover what Cros/Paul were reporting.I think differently
Because you are the only one challenging me on this ,and because of your repeated claims I am making things up,I will not reply or explain to anything else you write.

[John G]

Time for another review, methinks. Thus, on the face of it The Code imposes strict liability on an officer in respect of the requirement for taking particulars in a criminal case or an accident. On that basis PC Mizen was definitely guilty of misconduct.

However, if it's to be argued that the intention of the authors was not to create strict liability then additional words need to be added to the provisions, i.e. in order to give The Code efficacy. And I don't accept it's as simple as saying those words should be "if a witness expressly states an accident or criminal case as occurred then particulars must be taken".

That would mean that an officer would have little responsibility, such as the reasonable exercise of discretion, on the matter. For instance, what would happen in circumstances where a witness approached an officer and reported, "There's a woman lying on the ground. Looks like she's been assaulted?" Could an officer simply avoid responsibility simply on the basis that the witness wasn't certain?

Here's another example. A member of the public approaches an officer and reports, "I've been sent by another man to report an assault. I didn't witness the assault myself, but the other man did." Again, could an officer avoid the responsibility to act simply because the witness submitting the report didn't physically witness a crime himself?

It's also possible that PC Mizen was in breach of another provision of The Code. Thus, there's a provision in the Vincent Police Code entitled "Aid to the Injured." This provides that, "In serious cases of illness or injury in the streets, medical aid should be immediately procured." The emphasis is mine.

Now, it's common ground that PC Mizen failed to act immediately, despite being informed that there was a woman lying in the streets, possibly dead. It could therefore be argued that he should have acted immediately to procure medical aid, as there was a reasonable possibility that the victim was seriously injured. And I doing accept that he would have been able to evade responsibility simply on the basis that the witness didn't state the victim was seriously injured. On that basis, the officer once again would be expected to exercise no judgment at all, but simply act as an automaton. And I really don't think that would have been the intention of the provision. For instance, if certainty were required, an officer could simply argue that he failed to act in circumstances where he was informed of a serious injury on the basis that neither he nor the witness were medically qualified, therefore they couldn't be certain that the person was seriously injured.

And, of course, it all comes down to PC Mizen's perceptions. If he felt that telling the truth could potentially get him into trouble, then he would have a motive to give an alternative account. And the fact that the incident turned out to be a highly unusual, and extremely violent, crime may have given him cause for concern.

In fact, one wonders if the press may well have been critical of PC Mizen's conduct if this had been one of the latter murders because, of course, as the series of murders developed the media became increasingly vocal in their condemnation of what they perceived as police failures.