Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Jonas Mizen

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patrick S
    started a topic PC Jonas Mizen

    PC Jonas Mizen

    We know from “Fisherman”, et al that much of their “evidence” against Lechmere is based upon the testimony of PC Jonas Mizen, the presumptive victim of now infamous “Mizen Scam”. Yet, when one analyzes the information it’s clear that there was a “Mizen Scam” and it was Jonas Mizen or orchestrated it, and he did so for very simply and understandable reasons.

    What do we know of PC Mizen’s behavior upon being informed that “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” and walked on. Paul states, “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…”

    Both Lechmere and Paul stated that they informed PC Mizen that the woman in Buck’s Row may be dead. Lechmere stated in his inquest testimony that he told Mizen, “She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." Paul in his statement to ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’ flatly stated, “I had told him the woman was dead.” Mizen, however, contended that he was told only that a woman was “lying in Buck’s Row”, stating that he was told, “You are wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying.”

    This brings us to another major inconsistency. Mizen claimed at the inquest that he was told that he was “wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row”. It’s been suggested that such a statement may have led Mizen to assume that Lechmere and Paul had been interrogated and released by a policeman already on the scene in Buck’s Row. Thus, he (Mizen) let the men go on their way, forgoing questioning them further, or searching either man. However, neither Paul nor Lechmere agree with Mizen on this point. Lechmere testified after Mizen, on day two of the Nichols’ inquest. He was asked directly if he’d told Mizen another policeman was awaiting him in Buck’s Row. This exchange was published in Telegraph on Tuesday, September 4:

    A Juryman: “Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?”

    Witness: “No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row.”

    Robert Paul’s statement in Lloyd’s makes no mention of a policeman waiting in Buck’s Row.

    “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.”

    Paul makes it clear that no policeman was present in Buck’s Row. In fact, he stresses that he believes that the police had not been doing their jobs effectively inferring that the police had not been adequately patrolling the area.

    The available information tells us that PC Jonas Mizen was likely not forthcoming about his meeting with Charles Lechmere and Robert Paul on the morning of the Nichols’ murder. Further, Mizen did not relate even a mention of his meeting Lechmere and Paul to PC Neil at the scene. He also did not inform his superiors – it seems – as PC Neil testified on Saturday, September 1, that he and he alone discovered “Polly” Nichols body. PC Mizen was not called to give testimony in the inquest until Monday, September 3, the day after Robert Paul’s interview appeared in ‘Lloyd’s Weekly’. Paul stated in his interview that he “saw (a policeman) 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….” It is reasonable to assume that Paul’s statement either compelled Mizen to share his encounter with Paul and the heretofore unnamed “other man” in Bakers Row, or Mizen had been asked about Paul’s statement by his superiors. Duty rosters would easily have identified the PC on duty “in Church Row, just at the top of Buck's Row” at 3:45am on August 31.

    Based upon what we know, it’s obvious that PC Mizen was not truthful about many details of what occurred in Baker’s Row. His reasons for being less than honest is understandable, albeit not the sinister reasons many researches may hope for. It’s clear the Mizen assumed that the two men he’d met in Baker’s Row had simply come across a woman lying drunk on the pavement. He continued “calling people up” for work. He reacted with no urgency whatsoever. He asked the men no questions. He didn’t ask their names. He was in no great hurry to report to Buck’s Row. Stating that he was told a PC was already on the scene absolves him somewhat. Stating that he not told the woman was dead, makes his lack of action somewhat more understandable. Mizen’s untruthful statements were made to protect his job and his reputation. It’s clear to anyone willing to see the obvious.

  • The Baron
    replied
    Absolutly Dusty,

    I find it amusing indeed, that the same posters who always say there was time for another killer before Lechmere, they find it now hard to believe there was also time for a killer after Lechmere and Paul left the place,

    And the very posters who always say the time given by witnesses most not be taken as gospel, on the other hand here, they say that another killer after they left will only have 5 Minutes!!

    Was it not very dark for cherry picking too?


    The Baron




    ​​​​​
    Last edited by The Baron; 04-21-2019, 08:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    If the killer could do what they did to Catherine Eddowes in the time frame available there, it's no big stretch to do what they did to Mrs Nichols. However, I'd preference the killer returning to finish the job rather than arriving.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post


    People are very different indeed and no one think like the other...

    This is for me why it is next to impossible that two men examined a severly mutilated woman without noticing anything, they couldn't see blood, couldn't feel the wetness of the blood, couldn't see her opened eyes, couldn't feel the blood flowing and running out of her throat that has been cut from ear to ear way down to the bone, even worse, one of them detected a faint breath!!

    For me, she was cut after they left the scene, and that proves Lechmere was innocent.

    ​​
    The Baron
    So in the five minutes between Lechmere and Paul finding an ‘unconscious’ Nichols and PC Neil finding a dead Nichols we have our killer arriving? He finds the unconscious woman and mutilates her? Really?

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by The Baron View Post

    For me, she was cut after they left the scene, and that proves Lechmere was innocent.

    ​​
    The Baron
    It's either that, Baron, or it was too dark to be able to notice blood and open eyes. However, the scenario you propose becomes a little too unbelievable for my taste: the murderer either has to have stuck around to wait for the 2 men to leave, after which he has just about enough time to do all the cutting and get away without Neil or Thain hearing and seeing him or he just has to stumble upon this woman lying motionless in the street by chance at exactly the right time.
    Last edited by FrankO; 04-21-2019, 09:02 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Baron
    replied
    Originally posted by FrankO View Post
    I don't see how there should be another mystery, Dusty. Paul testified that he hadn't seen any blood, adding that it had been a very dark night. If it was too dark to see any glistening blood, it's not at all odd that he didn't see open eyes glistening. PC Neil only saw the blood and open eyes after lighting his lamp.

    All the best,
    Frank

    People are very different indeed and no one think like the other...

    This is for me why it is next to impossible that two men examined a severly mutilated woman without noticing anything, they couldn't see blood, couldn't feel the wetness of the blood, couldn't see her opened eyes, couldn't feel the blood flowing and running out of her throat that has been cut from ear to ear way down to the bone, even worse, one of them detected a faint breath!!

    For me, she was cut after they left the scene, and that proves Lechmere was innocent.

    ​​
    The Baron
    Last edited by The Baron; 04-19-2019, 10:03 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FrankO
    replied
    Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post

    >>PC Neil said that when he found the body the eyes were open and that is something that does not sit right for me, neither Lechmere or Paul's accounts mention they noticed the eyes of the woman they found being open, how did they miss it if PC Neil saw it only a few minutes later and why would Lechmere and Paul think Nichols was either dead or drunk if her eyes were wide open and not blinking or moving and she was not moving either. I know it is not unheard of for people to be found sleeping with the eyes open but I doubt its a common occurrence and probably pretty eerie to see and you would probably be more likely to think someone dead if they are laying prone on the floor staring unblinking up at you.<<

    Good point, tis yet another mystery.
    I don't see how there should be another mystery, Dusty. Paul testified that he hadn't seen any blood, adding that it had been a very dark night. If it was too dark to see any glistening blood, it's not at all odd that he didn't see open eyes glistening. PC Neil only saw the blood and open eyes after lighting his lamp.

    All the best,
    Frank

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Go ahead, list them, one by one and I will answer them all.<<

    24 hours later ... Sound of Swedish crickets chirping ...

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>The old myth of me "avoiding questions" again, I see! Go ahead, list them, one by one and I will answer them all. It is as rotten a lie today as it was the last time you tried it, so let's quash it once and for all.<<

    First off you need to take some time out and relax, you are getting upset and when you get upset you tend to get personal, which is not constructive to anyone.

    It's nobody's fault, but yours that you've avoided the questions. Of course, you are under no obligation to answer them, but people will rightly or wrongly draw conclusions about your aviodance.


    >>I am waiting! And DON´T tell me that you have already posted the questions - do it again, and do it now. No yellowbelly hiding, please. Put up or shut up. <<

    This thread is only 4 pages long and the relevant subject matter is only in the last two pages. It doesn't say much for your attitude to research, that you require me to find them for you, still, hang on...

    ... it took me 35 secs.

    Post #82:
    "Simple test, prove, to me, according to Xmere's time source, that there was a long delay in him reaching Buck's Row.

    Prove to me that Paul was correct in saying it was exactly 3:45 when he entered Bucks Row and that the three policemen were wrong."

    Post #83: "Above all, prove to me that Xmere and Paul's times were in sync. Without that your story is meaningless."

    I asked again, in post #101.

    I notice you cut and pasted my posts in your responses, so you can't claim not to have seen them and yet no answers to those specific questions.
    have plenty more if you are finally in the mood for answering.

    ​​​​​​​If you could avoid digressing as you normal do in your answers it would be helpful.


    >>My money is on you failing to produce any question at all, since you know quite well that I can answer them all.<<

    Don't take up gambling, you've racked up over $10,000 in virtual debt in your last two posts to me already.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    The old myth of me "avoiding questions" again, I see! Go ahead, list them, one by one and I will answer them all. It is as rotten a lie today as it was the last time you tried it, so let's quash it once and for all.

    I am waiting! And DON´T tell me that you have already posted the questions - do it again, and do it now. No yellowbelly hiding, please. Put up or shut up.

    My money is on you failing to produce any question at all, since you know quite well that I can answer them all.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-14-2019, 04:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied

    >>Here´s an exercise in logical thinking for you: ... Now, make the assumption that Lechmere was the killer and heard the approaching Paul. If he then decided that he wanted to try and bluff it out, how would he move away three steps or five from the body? Quickly or slowly? Would he or would he not take care to step softly? Any ideas?<<

    "Logic" dictates that if he had time to tiptoe through the tulips slowly, he had time to disappear into the shadows.


    >>Now, let's return to Paul. If he was - as I am brazenly suggesting - speeding as best as he could, his hobnailed boots tapping away loudly as he went, would that in any way impact his ability to hear somebody stepping slowly and softly three or five steps into the street fifty, sixty, seventy yards away?<<

    First problem we have, is Paul only says he was hurrying along in that Lloyds interview. So, already we are in the realm of speculation rather than fact. Next piece of speculation on your part is that he had steel shod boots. Three people who claim they were awake at the time of the murder say they heard nothing, so to stick with the actual evidence available and not wishful thinking seems to be a "logical" approach" doesn't it?


    >>Take out a coin, Dusty, and sit down at your kitchen table. Then knock the coin against the surface of the table with gusto, tick, tick, tick!
    Now, take the coin and touch the surface of the table with it as softly as you can.
    Here´s the ten thousand dollar question: Can you hear any difference whatsoever? No?<<


    Well, three witnesses seem qualified to claim your $10,000!


    >>An addition: If Lechmere had really been walking 40 yards or so in front of Paul hurrying on account of being late for work, THEN I merrily agree that Paul should have heard him - but he never said he did. My conclusion is that Lechmere was therefore NOT 40 yards or so in front of Paul, hurrying down Bucks Row, but instead immobile, kneeling at the side of Nichols as Paul arrived in Bucks Row.<<

    Am I take it that you don't understand the mathematical concept that one object travelling faster behind another object on the same course will catch it up?

    Or that someone hurrying is unlikely to be sightseeing, taking note their surroundings, but rather absorbed in their mission?



    >>Can you see how my argument works on all levels, while yours ...well, y' a know ...<<

    I can see that there may alternatives that I have not considered, but I do know that my argument fits in with, not only all the known facts, but the laws of mathematics and human behaviour as well. Whilst you have thus far avoided all the questions your theory poses.
    Last edited by drstrange169; 04-14-2019, 01:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Yes, debate over. That's as it should be - everybody has had an opportunity to take in my point and see that Lechmere´s things are off by a whole lot.<<

    That's the point, you haven't demonstrated how Charles Cross's testimony is inaccurate, you haven't answered the specific questions I asked way back in this thread.



    >> is interesting, however, how you allow for Lechmeres timings to be way off, while you need the PC:s timings (who we are certain must be wrong in some way) to be spot on. But such is the standard of your Ripperology! "With a large degree of certainty" - bollocks.<<

    Factually incorrect, I stated twice in my post "All timings are approximate", it's there for all to read. You seem to be floundering a bit here Christer.



    >>Its not THAT modern. Swanson had that exact timing in his report of October 1888, the last and presumably conclusive report we have to go on.<<

    Swanson was a glorified secretary, his job was to collate all the information in order to make precised reports for his superiors. he was never on the ground and he was never directly involved in the actual investigating. Consequently it is easy to find plenty of errors in his precised reports, examples of which I've pointed out to you on numerous occasions. I can post them again if you've forgotten them.

    The, on the ground, investigator, who actual meet the people attended the crime scenes and attended some of the inquests, Abberline, the man in the best position to actually know, the man who may have actually met Paul, gives the time for Cross and Paul as 3:40.

    But, all this is distraction from the main point, Cross could not get to Broad Street by 4:00 am if he was only discovering the body at 3:45.



    >>The only person claiming to know the exact time is Robert Paul who says that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he passed down Bucks Row. ...<<

    Ok we take Paul's Lloyds interview seriously, ignore all the contray evidence, ignore the fact that he changed his testimony under oath.

    He saw Xmere "standing where the woman was", but despite all his interactions with Xmere he found nothing suspicious about Xmere with regards to the murder, an eyewitness exoneration!

    According to this highly reliable interview, he, not Xmere, felt her wrist, he felt no faint breathing as he and Xmere would both later claim, in fact according to this interview, Mrs Nichols had been long dead before Xmere left home.

    Best of all, he left Xmere with the body and went off and spoke to Mizen alone. Bang does the whole reason for the alleged story ofXmere having to invent a story about a policeman.

    Yeah, good interview to base a theory on. Or are you just happy to cherry pick the bits you like?



    >>There is also the issue of how close Llewellyn lived, and the time it would have taken Thain to reach his home. If Thain set off at 3.40, he seems to have had a nice cuppa on his way, and I find that less credible.<<

    Where did you pluck the 3:40 time from? Certainly not anything I wrote, you are floundering aren't you.

    I'm always happy to talk about what I've written, but I can't be responsible for what you've re-written.



    >>As you can see, there are many factors to weigh in. "Forgetting" about half of them is not helpful if we want to find a Solomonic solution to the scenario.<<

    So far, the only person "forgetting", as the above demonstrates has been you. Now do we talk facts or will you keep skirting around the uncomfortable parts of you theory?
    Last edited by drstrange169; 04-14-2019, 01:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Im quite happy to “loosen” the time then Fish. So if we take the time from when Lechmere first saw the body (which I would assume would have been when he was pretty much adjacent to it) to the time when he stepped back into the street and heard Paul approach we could have a figure I’d say 30 seconds. This could add 40 to 60 yards to the gap between Lechmere and Paul making it between 70 and 100 yards. Surely enough to make it plausible that they didn’t hear each other.
    You need to get Paul out of the street before you can reason that it would be in any way unlikely that they heard each other, Herlock. The facades of the houses lining the street with no space inbetween them would function as sound walls, bouncing the noise back into the street. Once Paul stepped into the street, hurrying along, if he had hobnailed boots, it would have sounded like a flamenco festival.

    And for God´s sake, don´t say that Lechmere must have been close to the body!!! Other posters have invested oceans of blood, sweat and tears to dissolve that notion. There are even those who have cut away snippets from the reports to make it look as if Lechmere was 30 or 40 yards away from the body as he stepped out into the street. If you suddenly admit the bleeding obvious, where does that leave them? Think about it!

    By the way, we still have Lechmere saying that he stepped into the street and heard Paul as he did so. There is no evidence that he stepped out, pondered the Roman Empire for half a minute and then stepped back slowly before hearing Pauls footsteps. Let's mix things up and eat from the Daily News today, as a change: "It looked like a tarpaulin sheet, but walking to the middle of the road he saw it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man about forty yards away coming up Buck's row in the direction witness had himself come."

    No hiatus. No pondering about Caracalla, Caligula and Nero. No added time. That is what we are told. Mind you, if Lechmere was the killer, it would have been of the essence to him to shorten down the distance between himself and Paul as much as possible. With every second taken away from that gap, he got a better alibi himself. So its understandable that he pressed the point that he heard the approaching Paul AT THE EXACT SAME TIME as he made his way out into the street.
    Last edited by Fisherman; 04-13-2019, 01:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    .
    Why would we "tighten" it to Lechmere only having been at the body fort ten seconds when he said that he heard Paul as he stepped out into the street? Why not go with what he says
    Im quite happy to “loosen” the time then Fish. So if we take the time from when Lechmere first saw the body (which I would assume would have been when he was pretty much adjacent to it) to the time when he stepped back into the street and heard Paul approach we could have a figure I’d say 30 seconds. This could add 40 to 60 yards to the gap between Lechmere and Paul making it between 70 and 100 yards. Surely enough to make it plausible that they didn’t hear each other.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Really? They were outdoors and I think we can reasonably assume that neither Paul or Lech were wearing stiletto’s (unless you’ve discovered something about him that you’re yet to pass on) Lets tighten it so that Lechmere had only been at the body for ten seconds. This still means that they could have been half the length of a football pitch apart as they walked to work.
    Accoustic tunnels are not only inside phenomenons, I'm afraid. So yes, really - this IS more or less what we are looking at, shoes with nails in them, loud sharp noises on a deserted street.

    Why would we "tighten" it to Lechmere only having been at the body fort ten seconds when he said that he heard Paul as he stepped out into the street? Why not go with what he says, although he may be lying? I am more pleased with how you say that he was "at the body" and not "in the middle of the street". Sometimes old Father Freud does the trick...
    Just how long is half a football pitch, anyway? 50-65 yards, it would seem. And the accoustic tunnel/Bucks Row was around 130 yards from Brady Street down to Browns.

    I am not saying that they were not wearing rubber sneakers, both of them, or that there was not a blackbird singing from the rooftops, taking their acoustic focus towards it - there can, as always, be no certainties here. But on the whole, hobnails boots is what should be expected, a loud sound is what should be expected, a street like Bucks Row working as an accoustic tunnel is what should be expected, and so it should also be expected that the men would have been acutely aware of each others presence for the longest time. But since things do not always work as expected, it may be that there is nothing very strange about them not sharing each other. It is just one of them points that add to what Scobie said: A jury would not like Lechmere.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X