PC Jonas Mizen

[Patrick S]

Well Mizen was knocking people up for a reason. Why risk everybody being late for work if he broke off to investigate? Whether the woman was dead or drunk she'd likely still be there when he finished what he was doing. Maybe he earned a bit of extra cash knocking up. In his place, what would you do?

Hard to say what I'd do as I think that life was so much different then and there. But your comment is an important one, I think. I don't believe that we should view PC Mizen in a negative light, even if he was less than honest in his Nichols' inquest testimony. Based upon what we know of his service record and his life after leaving the Met, it's reasonable to assume that Mizen was a good man. I think he did what many if not most would have done had they been in his shoes: he told what amounted to an insignificant lie, which had no real impact on the Nichols' investigation or the Whitechapel murders as a whole. He did so in order to protect his career, his income, his reputation. That's understandable. Further, I suspect that his superiors at the Met may well have understood that his testimony was less than truthful and allowed him to offer that testimony with at least their tacit approval.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Nichols' murder came on the heels of several attacks/murders of women around Whitechapel. The Met had been under attack in the press for their lack of success in producing even plausible suspects. Clearly, Robert Paul's comments in Lloyd's did little to cast the Met in a better light.

"I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see."

So our chronology of events looks like this:

Friday, August 31: Nichols' is murdered.

Saturday, September 1: PC Neil testifies at the Nichols' inquest that he discovered the Nichols' body. He does not mention Mizen having spoken to two Carmen. His testimony was reported in the Telegraph:

"Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's Row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. "

Sunday, September 2: No inquest testimony. Robert Paul's comments appear in Lloyd's.

Monday, September 3: Mizen testifies at the inquest. Mizen stated that “at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.”

Also testifying that day was Charles Cross/Lechmere. Remember that Lechmere had not been asked his name by Mizen. He had not been described in any way by Paul in his comments in Lloyd's. Paul called him simply "a man". In fact, Paul diminished Lechmere's involvement in both Buck's Row and Baker's Row. He has himself as the prime actor and speaker. And this is what Christer calls a 'bombshell' that forced Lechmere to appear at the inquest 24 hours after it appeared in print?

I think not. I think it's clear that Lechmere came forward of his own accord because he felt that was the right thing to do. These actions fit with what we know of the man, as well. He maintained solid, steady employment throughout his life. At the time of the murder he'd been employed by Pickford's for 20 years. He and his wife had 11 children, 10 of which survived to adulthood. He and his wife were married for more than 50 years. He continually improved his family's circumstances throughout his life. After his retirement he became a business owner, opening a small shop and working there himself. He died in his bed, past the age of 70, leaving his wife a sizable inheritance. So far as anyone knows he was never arrested, institutionalized, or accused of being a man of ill-humor (despite Christer's hyperventilation at seeing his picture in his worldwide sent documentary).

[MysterySinger]

Well Mizen was knocking people up for a reason. Why risk everybody being late for work if he broke off to investigate? Whether the woman was dead or drunk she'd likely still be there when he finished what he was doing. Maybe he earned a bit of extra cash knocking up. In his place, what would you do?

[Darryl Kenyon]

Perhaps Pc Mizen didn't totally believe them and was wary of going into a dark thoroughfare with two men he did not know, nervous for his own safety, a crime occurred while he was distracted etc

[Pcdunn]

Now you see the copper, now you don't...

I must've read that a dozen times when it just dawned on me why Mizen would lie.

Columbo

Of course! If Neil's testimony has already been heard (in which he discovered the body), then Mizen can't admit he was told by a pair of citizens about the corpse, yet delayed going to see to it. If he frames his testimony as that they told him "a policeman" wanted him, then he mitigates the lapse a little bit, maybe enough to keep his job. Of course, his assumption that the car-men had seen PC Neil is proven wrong when Lechmere says, "No, I didn't see a policeman."

[Columbo]

I see. And how so?

You understand that the only reason this exchange is the topic of conversation at all is that one of the key aspects of "Fisherman's" Lechmere the Ripper theory is the "Mizen Scam". One of the lynchpins of the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was duped by Lechmere, who told him that a policeman had sent them from Buck's Row and that he (Mizen) was wanted there, where a woman was lying (Mizen contends he wasn't told anything beyond that). This makes explains why Mizen did not ask Paul or Cross/Lechmere their names, why he didn't (so far as we know) inspect their clothing, why didn't ask the men to accompany him back to Buck's Row. He simply said, "Alright" and continued calling people up, tricked into believing that the two men had been "cleared" by the (non-existent) PC in Buck's Row and not having been told (as both Paul and Lechmere contended) that she was dead/likely dead.

I contend that Mizen (with the endorsement of his superiors at the Met who had allowed Neil to testify that he'd found the body without mentioning Mizen, Cross, Paul) testified as he did after reading Paul's comments published in Lloyd's Weekly the previous day. "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

I must've read that a dozen times when it just dawned on me why Mizen would lie.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

yes, simple as it is

I see. And how so?

You understand that the only reason this exchange is the topic of conversation at all is that one of the key aspects of "Fisherman's" Lechmere the Ripper theory is the "Mizen Scam". One of the lynchpins of the "Mizen Scam" is that Mizen was duped by Lechmere, who told him that a policeman had sent them from Buck's Row and that he (Mizen) was wanted there, where a woman was lying (Mizen contends he wasn't told anything beyond that). This makes explains why Mizen did not ask Paul or Cross/Lechmere their names, why he didn't (so far as we know) inspect their clothing, why didn't ask the men to accompany him back to Buck's Row. He simply said, "Alright" and continued calling people up, tricked into believing that the two men had been "cleared" by the (non-existent) PC in Buck's Row and not having been told (as both Paul and Lechmere contended) that she was dead/likely dead.

I contend that Mizen (with the endorsement of his superiors at the Met who had allowed Neil to testify that he'd found the body without mentioning Mizen, Cross, Paul) testified as he did after reading Paul's comments published in Lloyd's Weekly the previous day. "I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

[Rainbow]

yes, simple as it is

[Patrick S]

Not at all, it is a disaster to say that he has been told “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

comparing to a simple 'Alright' answer..

if he wanted to protect his job, he only had to tell the truth - if that was the truth and he hasn't been informed that a policeman wants him in Bucks Row

but thanks, that is another important point about Lechmere guilt

I'm sorry. I'm having a very difficult time understanding your point. It seems that you believe it would have been better for Mizen to "tell the truth" if the truth had been that he were NOT informed that a policeman was waiting in Buck's Row. Is that correct?

[Rainbow]

Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.

Not at all, it is a disaster to say that he has been told “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

comparing to a simple 'Alright' answer..

if he wanted to protect his job, he only had to tell the truth - if that was the truth and he hasn't been informed that a policeman wants him in Bucks Row

but thanks, that is another important point about Lechmere guilt

[Patrick S]

He may have stated alright. so what?

Columbo

I'm sorry. But I'm still unclear as what point "Rainbow" was making. If the issue is that Mizen responded "Alright", I'd concede that's he likely did so, in that neither Paul nor Lechmere indicated that Mizen completely ignored them and offered no response at all.

I believe that Mizen's statements at the Nichols' inquest were intended to shield himself (and the Met) from criticism and embarrassment due to the lack of seriousness and urgency he displayed in Baker's Row.

In order to understand PC Mizen’s behavior, we must first look at the night of the Nichol’s murder in the context of it's time and place.

“Polly” Nichols is generally considered to have been the first victim of “Jack the Ripper”. Thus, what has become known as ‘The Autumn of Terror’ hadn’t yet begun. However, there had already been several previous incidents that had both the police and public on heightened alert, and the Met's inability to catch the perpetrator(s) had brought them criticism from both the media and the public.

On February 28, 1888, 38 year old Annie Millwood was attached by a man she described as a stranger. She was stabbed with a knife in the “legs and lower torso”. She was admitted to Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary. She recovered and was released on March 21. However, ten days later Millwood collapsed and died. The coroner determined the cause of death as, “'sudden effusion into the pericardium from the rupture of the left pulmonary artery through ulceration.”

On March 28, 1888, Ada Wilson answered a knock at the door of her home. A man used force to enter and demanded money. Wilson refused. She was stabbed twice in the throat. Wilson survived her injuries.

On April 3, 1888, Emma Smith reported that she was attacked by three or four “youths”. She was raped and beaten, and robbed. Her assailants thrust a blunt object into her vagina, tearing her perineum. She was able to return to her lodging house. She was admitted to the London Hospital where she died of her injuries for days later.

On August 7, 1888, Martha Tabram was found murdered in the George Yard Buildings. She had been stabbed thirty-nine times, primarily about the abdomen, breasts, and pelvic area.

On the morning that PC Jonas Mizen was informed that a woman was lying in Buck’s Row it had been a little more than three weeks since Martha Tabram has been found murdered but a short distance from Buck’s Row. Her murder was preceded that year by three further attacks on women. Despite all this, it seems likely that PC Mizen felt that the situation in Buck’s Row was not a serious one. His actions indicate that he likely found it far more likely that the woman the men had seen was passed out, drunk. The men had not noticed her wounds, thus they’d not reported them to Mizen. Lechmere had said that Nichols “looks to me to be either dead or drunk”. Mizen might reasonably have assumed the latter. What we know of Mizen’s actions upon hearing the men’s information indicate just that.

[Columbo]

Saying:

“You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

will be a disaster to his career way more than simply:

“a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright”

Is that not obvious ?!

He may have stated alright. so what?

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Hey Patrick,

You may be right, but once someone's chosen a side you won't be able to convince them otherwise. This is very well done!

Columbo

Probably. However, there are some participating in a few of the newer Crossmere threads that are somewhat new and/or undecided. Thus, having more info re: Mizen may be of interest.

[Patrick S]

Saying:

“You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

will be a disaster to his career way more than simply:

“a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright”

Is that not obvious ?!

I don't know what you're saying here.

[Rainbow]

Saying:

“You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

will be a disaster to his career way more than simply:

“a woman was lying in Buck’s Row”? Both Lechmere and Paul offer similar descriptions of Mizen’s reaction upon hearing this information. Lechmere stated that he replied, “Alright”

Is that not obvious ?!

[Columbo]

Hey Patrick,

You may be right, but once someone's chosen a side you won't be able to convince them otherwise. This is very well done!

Columbo