The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[David Orsam]

Some of the evidence, yes - that delivered by Lechmere himself.

Other evidence, delivered by Mizen and Paul, does not mention the PC being told anything at all about any drunkenness or death.

So why choose Lechmere´s evidence over the two other mens ditto?

I'm not "choosing" the evidence Fisherman, I'm referring to the evidence in its totality. The fact that neither Mizen nor Paul mention drunkenness or death does not in any way mean that it was not said.

I assure that you that I have never lost sight of your theory that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper but it's a theory and the same could be true of every other witness. I cannot discount the evidence of every witness in this case simply because they might have been the Ripper.

It would be pure and utter madness for me to argue with Harry on the basis that Mizen was NOT told that a woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row. I'm afraid that I'm a rational person and cannot discard evidence simply because you don't like it.

As far as the argument I am making is concerned, it doesn't matter whether Mizen was told that a woman was dead or drunk or not. If he was merely told that a woman was "lying" in Bucks Row then it makes my argument that he thought he was being summoned by an officer in Bucks Row even stronger because there was less reason for him to have left his beat.

[Fisherman]

Well actually I'm saying the evidence was he was told she was dead or drunk. No mention of dying.

Some of the evidence, yes - that delivered by Lechmere himself.

Other evidence, delivered by Mizen and Paul, does not mention the PC being told anything at all about any drunkenness or death.

So why choose Lechmere´s evidence over the two other mens ditto?

[David Orsam]

Harry,

I hardly know where to start with your post, but I'll try the beginning.

"Ok,so the word drunk was mentioned.How does that alter or have an effect on what Mizen should have done."

Well obviously if she was, or might have been, drunk, it raises the question, should he have left his beat? What happens if he leaves his beat and a robbery or some form of emergency occurs on HIS beat? He's not there to deal with it is he? It would mean he has abandoned his beat to go off in search of a woman in another division who might be drunk who should have been dealt with by the beat officer.

"None,being as both Cross and Paul stressed that of the two ,dead or dying was the most probable."

Well that is not what happened. You keep saying "dead or dying" but all Mizen was told was that the woman was "dead or drunk". That means she wasn't going anywhere and the beat constable would have found her.

"That's what should have motivated Mizen.A woman lay dead or dying,in a public place,at about three forty five in the morning,and he was aware of it.."

No, he wasn't aware that a woman was dying. He was aware that a woman was dead or drunk.

"Admitted he didn't know it was murder.That's no excuse,his training and knowledge,(At least two women had in recent times been found murdered in similar circumstances)should have suggested it could be other than natural causes."

Are you saying that no women were ever found lying drunk in the street at night in Whitechapel?

"So do not preach to me that the mention of the word drunk,excuses Mizen.It was an emergency,and he delayed in responding to that emergency.He was at fault."

Well you think he should have delayed responding to that "emergency" by taking the names and addresses of Cross and Paul. So it couldn't have been that much of an emergency could it?

In fact, I fail to see how it is an emergency at all. Where is the threat to life in a woman who is either dead or drunk? Is there any precedent or authority to suggest that this was an emergency or is it just your unsupported opinion, speaking in 2016?

"He could and finally did leave his allotted beat,he had a valid reason for doing so."

Yes, he believed he had been summoned to Bucks Row by another officer, as he stated in his evidence.

"Calling up was a priveledge,a private agreement between a police officer and members of the public,sanctioned by the department.It was not a police duty.So no David,as you claimed,he could not be dismissed for failing to call up,"

In which case how do you explain the police regulation in force in 1888 about "calling people up in the morning" which stated: "The Police are bound to render this or any other service in their power to the inhabitants and any neglect is to be reported, and will be punished". This was in the Metropolitan Police General Orders in force in 1888 based on a PO of 9 February 1853.

"and under no circumstances would knocking up take preference over a reported instance of a woman lying dead or dying,in a public place,at about 3.45 in the morning."

Well he hadn't been told she was dying but where is your authority which would have informed Mizen about what took precedence over a report of a dead or drunk woman in the street? Or is it again no more than your opinion?

"It is because you do not know the law David,that you fail to see how a police officer can compel a person to give a name and address,or in other words prove identification."

It's just a fact Harry. You can find it on the Metropolitan Police Website under stop and search.

"The police officer will ask for your name and address and date of birth. You do not have to give this information if you don't want to, unless the police officer says they are reporting you for an offence."

https://beta.met.police.uk/advice-and-information/stop-and-search/the-stop-and-search-process/

From the Home Office website:

"Stop and question: police powers
A police officer might stop you and ask:
what your name is
what you’re doing in the area
where you’re going
You don’t have to stop or answer any questions. This can’t be used as evidence that you’re doing something suspicious or as a reason to search you."

https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights

But perhaps the Met Police and Home Office don't know the law?

"The fact that it rarely happens,in no way shows that law does not exist.I have told you how to gain that knowledge,and I am not trying to prove anything to anyone,especially you,the information can be gained by studying the common law of England(Any police officer posting is entitled to inform me if I am wrong)."

It's no more than gobbledigook to say that the answer can be found by "studying the common law of England".

"I will not say I am word perfect but here it is. A police officer may ask qestions of any person he believes can be of help. A police officer can compel any person to prove identity,and may detain any person who fails to properly identify themselves,and hold them until identity is established."

It's nonsense. A person has to be suspected of having committed an offence. But you really just prove how few people know their legal rights as citizens. The idea that Paul and Cross would have known whether or not they could be required to give their name and address to Mizen or be dragged back to Bucks Row is pretty laughable. They probably didn't have a clue. But clearly, Harry, if challenged, all Mizen needed to do was say he had a right to take them back to Bucks Row "under the common law" and that would have been that.

"But enough of this sidetracking.My belief is that neither Paul nor Cross lied,that they did not report to Mizen that a police officer needed his assistance.It was a fabrication of Mizens,and the reason he might lie has been given."

Given by whom though? What is that reason Harry?

"I didn't say it took five minutes for Mizen to join Neil.I said up to five minutes. In spite of your denial that my claim has never been published,David,You will find the reference in the Jack the Ripper A to Z.So another untruth from you.It's getting to be a habit."

How can it possibly be an untruth for me to have said that it has not been published that Mizen took five minutes to join Thain and Neil in Bucks Row. That's perfectly true isn't it? And you clearly agree with me.

I don't know what you think you’ve seen in the A to Z - I'm afraid I don't trust your recollection for one second (and I suspect that Steve has identified what you were misremembering) - but I'm fairly sure the authors of that book were not in Whitechapel that evening. And to say that it took Mizen "up to five minutes" to join Neil means that it could have taken him 1 minute, 2 minutes, 3 minutes, 4 minutes of 5 minutes. So where does that get you?

"As to how long after Neil, Mizen arrived?.Well Neil had not entered Bucks Row before Cross and Paul left Bucks Row?.It was only a short distance to the junction of Hanbury street and Bakers Row,and less than half a minute for Cross and Paul to inform Mizen.So had Mizen left immediately,it would have been before or about the time Neil came upon the body of Nichols.And as Neil had no reason to hurry,and Mizen a need to,Mizen could,in my opinion,had he left when he should have, have been no more than a minute behind Neil.We know Mizen delayed."

We know that Mizen did not leave "immediately" because he finished the knocking up job he was engaged on. Other than that it is literally impossible to estimate any kind of time because Neil could have been walking round the corner into Bucks Row the very second that Cross and Paul left it.

"For how long doesn't really matter,he failed to respond to an emergency at the first opportunity.He was in breach of regulations."

So should he have taken Cross and Paul's names and addresses or not?

And remind me what the emergency was?

[David Orsam]

It appears that you think that Mizen was telling the truth, and or was not mistaken about what he was told by lech. Seems like you think lech did tell him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks row.

if this is so, and therefor lech lied to Mizen- Why do you think lech lied to him?

Here's the way I look at it Abby.

I ask a simple question: Why did PC Mizen leave his beat?

Was it because it was important to revive a drunken woman? I don't think so and, in fact, if he had only been told a woman was lying drunk in Bucks Row I don't think he would have left his beat at all.

Was it because he had been told there was a dead woman in Bucks Row? Well this is debatable but there are two options:

1. He was allowed to leave his beat if there was a dead woman in Bucks Row.
2. He was not allowed to leave his beat if there was a dead woman in Bucks Row.

If 1. is the correct answer then that explains why he left his beat. He was fully justified in doing so. There was no need to invent any evidence about a policeman calling him over there.

If, on the other hand, 2. is the correct answer then why did he, in fact, leave his beat? Why not simply carry on knocking up and leave the dead body to the beat constable, perhaps reporting the issue to his sergeant on his next round?

In short, I see no reason for Mizen to ever have invented a constable in Bucks Row.

On the contrary, I suggest it did NOT help him at all. The criticism levelled at him was that he continued knocking up when he should have rushed over to Bucks Row. Clearly this was based on hindsight in the knowledge that Nichols had been mutilated, so that was unfortunate for Mizen, but how does the invention of a policeman help him to escape this criticism? It actually makes it worse because (if the allegation was true) not only has he ignored a murder but he has now ignored the call of a policeman summoning him to assist in the investigation of the murder!!

Further, it would inevitably emerge that no such constable ever summoned him to Bucks Row so such a lie, unnecessary as it was, would have been easily exposed.

So the lie does not make sense. As the lie does not make sense I can only conclude he was telling the truth (as he understood it).

Just to add one thing. It may be said that Mizen's invention of a policeman was somehow a way of protecting himself from criticism that he did not take the names of Cross and Paul (presumably because he could say that he assumed that those names had already been taken by the fictional officer). But I'm not aware of ANY contemporaneous criticism of Mizen for not taking the names. It seems very much like a modern day criticism to me. I'm not aware of any rule that said he had to take any names in such a circumstance. He was certainly supposed to take the names of witnesses to a crime or an accident. But he was not aware of a crime and neither Cross nor Paul had witnessed a crime. There had also not been an accident and, again, neither Cross nor Paul had witnessed one.

[David Orsam]

So that is the "truth" at which the discussion has arrived: Mizen was told not only that the woman could be dead or dying, but also that it may be that she was instead drunk.

Well actually I'm saying the evidence was he was told she was dead or drunk. No mention of dying.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=moonbegger;410200]

"You see, there are three elements involved where Lechmere and Mizen disagree, not just the one. And they all require an explanation."

And there is no reason to believe that appropriate questions were not asked, and satisfactory answers given. Just because we have no transcript, does not mean it didn't happen .. The fact that Lechmere was no longer under suspicion would indicate that any discrepancies were indeed ironed out and explained fully .

Moon

"No longer under suspicion"?

Who says he was EVER under suspicion?

And are you saying that the police never miss out, is that it? Then think again.

The truth is that "the Mizen scam" was never recognized by all the professional researchers and amateur sleuths who made it their business to look into every detail of the case. They all missed out on this part nevertheless. That goes to show how such things can and will be overlooked. If the victorian police was as clueless, that could well be the explanation to why they missed out.

The idea that the police will always look as deeply into matters as is needed and that they will always be able to clear up any loose ends is not a rational and realistic one, Moonbegger. And that leaves Lechmere right in the line of fire.

Now I really got to go.

[moonbegger]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;410189]
"You see, there are three elements involved where Lechmere and Mizen disagree, not just the one. And they all require an explanation."

And there is no reason to believe that appropriate questions were not asked, and satisfactory answers given. Just because we have no transcript, does not mean it didn't happen .. The fact that Lechmere was no longer under suspicion would indicate that any discrepancies were indeed ironed out and explained fully .

Moon

[Elamarna]

Ask yourself these questions, Steve:

If Mizen was not told about the extra PC - why would he dream it up himself when in place in Bucks Row? Of course he could easily think that the one who made Mizen needed in Bucks Row was the other PC - but would Mizen not be much more likely to be surprised than anything else?

My take is that he was indeed told he was needed, but that it was not said who by, he on arrival at the entrance to Bucks Row saw Neil signalling and assumed it was Neil, another PC, who had requested him.

Next: If Lechmere said that the woman was drunk or dead, why is it that Mizen forgot all about that?

I have no idea if that was actually said or not, it was however reported and I only raised the issue because Harry posted that no such comments had ever been recorded, which was inaccurate.

Next: If Lechmere and Paul both spoke to Mizen, why has Mizen suddenly forgotten Pauls contribution as he takes the stand at the inquest?

Without knowing what was really said that night we could speculate for ever.
It could be Paul said nothing as you seem to think, or it could be he just chimed in with only a very few words, perhaps something like for arguments sake "i think she is dead".
He does of course say he spoke to Mizen in his press article does he not? So it is not just Lechmere saying Paul spoke to Mizen is it?

We simply cannot know what was actually said that night and by whom, we have conflicting reports. It could have been cleared up of course at the inquest, but appears not to have been; was Mizen actually asked if he spoke to both men, or if both men spoke to him? I cannot seem to find any reference asking Mizen if Paul made any comments.

You see, there are three elements involved where Lechmere and Mizen disagree, not just the one. And they all require an explanation.

Last question: Why is it that all the three elements where the two disagree are elements where Lechmere would benefit from lying?

1. The extra PC lie would make Mizen think that the carmen had already been cleared by the colleague.
2. The lie about Paul also speaking to Mizen would dissolve any suspicions that Lechmere took Mizen to the side and lied to him.
3. The lie about the condition of the woman would serve A/ to disenable Mizen to reaslize the potential severity of the errand and B/ to fool the jury into believing that the carman HAD told Mizen that the errand may well be one of the utmost severity.

How do we explain away all of these matters, Steve? How do we make them ALL look innocent?
I´d be interested to hear your take on that before I leave again.

Yes Christer, they are certainly an issue which Could benefit Lechmere; But only if he lied, and only if he were the killer, and additionally Paul must be lying too in the Lloyds Article about speaking to Mizen.
Those are positions which with all due respect have not been proven.


Steve

[John G]

It seems to me that Lechmere may simply have been a very poor communicator. Thus, during cross-examination at the inquest he variously states that he believed Nichols to be "dead", "drunk", "outraged", "gone off in a swoon" and suffering no "serious injuries"! Therefore, if he was this confusing, and contradictory, in his conservation with PC Mizen is it hardly surprising that PC Mizen failed to grasp the potential seriousness of the situation?

[Fisherman]

Hi Abby I know that your question was to David, however I have a take on that.
I have believed for along time that there was a misunderstand, Lech said something like "you are needed in Bucks Row," either at that stage or more probably when he got to Bucks Row and saw Neil, Mizen assumed he was needed by another officer.

Steve

Ask yourself these questions, Steve:

If Mizen was not told about the extra PC - why would he dream it up himself when in place in Bucks Row? Of course he could easily think that the one who made Mizen needed in Bucks Row was the other PC - but would Mizen not be much more likely to be surprised than anything else?

Next: If Lechmere said that the woman was drunk or dead, why is it that Mizen forgot all about that?

Next: If Lechmere and Paul both spoke to Mizen, why has Mizen suddenly forgotten Pauls contribution as he takes the stand at the inquest?

You see, there are three elements involved where Lechmere and Mizen disagree, not just the one. And they all require an explanation.

Last question: Why is it that all the three elements where the two disagree are elements where Lechmere would benefit from lying?
1. The extra PC lie would make Mizen think that the carmen had already been cleared by the colleague.
2. The lie about Paul also speaking to Mizen would dissolve any suspicions that Lechmere took Mizen to the side and lied to him.
3. The lie about the condition of the woman would serve A/ to disenable Mizen to reaslize the potential severity of the errand and B/ to fool the jury into believing that the carman HAD told Mizen that the errand may well be one of the utmost severity.

How do we explain away all of these matters, Steve? How do we make them ALL look innocent?

I´d be interested to hear your take on that before I leave again.

[Elamarna]

Hi David
Interesting post.



It appears that you think that Mizen was telling the truth, and or was not mistaken about what he was told by lech. Seems like you think lech did tell him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks row.

if this is so, and therefor lech lied to Mizen- Why do you think lech lied to him?

Hi Abby I know that your question was to David, however I have a take on that.
I have believed for along time that there was a misunderstand, Lech said something like "you are needed in Bucks Row," either at that stage or more probably when he got to Bucks Row and saw Neil, Mizen assumed he was needed by another officer.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Once again, Harry, you prove to me that you haven't read the evidence properly. As Steve has already posted, Cross told the inquest (according to the Times of 4 September 1888) that "he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead."

Given that you were evidently not aware that the possibility had been raised with Mizen that Nichols was drunk, you might now want to reconsider your position. The simple fact is that a police officer was not allowed to leave his beat except in an emergency (the usual examples being given of a fire or a threat to life). But if Nichols was dead would that have been an emergency? If she was drunk would it have been an emergency? That's what Mizen had to work out. I repeat that he was not allowed to leave his beat. If officers left their beats at the drop of a hat the whole system of beat patrolling would have collapsed.

I am not disagreeing with you that Mizen "could and should" have gone to Bucks Row. But that is because he understood that he had been summoned there by another officer. That, I suggest, is why he left his beat and went to Bucks Row.

I can assure you that it has not been "published" that Mizen took five minutes to join Thain and Neil in Bucks Row.

As for your latest increasingly amusing attempt to pretend that you know what you are talking about regarding the law, I'm struggling to see how you can deny saying that the common law requires people walking along the street to give their names and addresses to police officers if you are also saying that a police officer can compel a person to give that information.

Under what authority could a police officer compel a person to give him their name and address if they were simply walking along the street? A police officer doesn't even have such power today! Or are you saying that Mizen could have taken out his truncheon and beaten the men about the head until they submitted and gave him their names and addresses?

You have had plenty of opportunity to support your claim. The fact is, Harry, that a police officer in 1888 could not under the law have compelled Paul or Cross to give him their names and addresses. He could only have asked them to do so, just as he could have asked them to accompany him back to Bucks Row.

That is why I step forward as the person who says you are making things up.

Hi David
Interesting post.

I am not disagreeing with you that Mizen "could and should" have gone to Bucks Row. But that is because he understood that he had been summoned there by another officer. That, I suggest, is why he left his beat and went to Bucks Row.

It appears that you think that Mizen was telling the truth, and or was not mistaken about what he was told by lech. Seems like you think lech did tell him he was wanted by another policeman in Bucks row.

if this is so, and therefor lech lied to Mizen- Why do you think lech lied to him?

[Elamarna]

I am avoiding Casebook these days - but still reading it. And it occurred to me that I can add information when it seems needed, and then let you gentlemen discuss matters without me parttaking. There is too much acrimony and animosity out here for me to see any reason to engage in discussion otherwise.

So let´s try it and see what happens!

On this thread, people are now discussing whether Mizen was correct or not to leave his post. You seem to have arrived at the conclusion that Harry was wrong to say that Mizen was only told that the woman was dead or dying - there seems to be an agreement that Mizen was ALSO told that the woman could instead have been drunk.

So that is the "truth" at which the discussion has arrived: Mizen was told not only that the woman could be dead or dying, but also that it may be that she was instead drunk.

Actually, this is nowhere near the full truth. There is one source - and one source only - for this statement, and that source is Charles Lechmere. HE is the one who claims that Mizen was told that the woman was dead/dying or drunk. HE is the one saying that "the other man" (Paul) claimed that he thought that Nichols was dead.

In a matter like this, we can choose to believe whichever witness we want to. To believe in Mizen having been given the information that the woman in Bucks Row was dead/dying or drunk, we must accept that Lechmere told the truth.

If we look instead at what Mizen says, he never stated that he was told EITHER of these things. He says that what he was told was that there was a woman lying in the street and that there was a PC requesting his aid. Mizen never says a word about any claim on behalf of the carman who spoke to him that the woman was dead/dying or drunk. Not a iot.
Whoops.

This is - in my restrained world, at least - very, very important. It needs to be weighed in, before we announce that it is a fact that Mizen was told anything at all about the woman being either dead/dying or drunk.

The one person who could have settled this matter is Paul. But he never mentions anything about telling Mizen a single word about the woman being dead/dying or drunk either. In his paper interview, he says Mizen was told "what he had seen" - which could well amount to "a woman lying in the street" as well as "a woman who was dead/dying or drunk". And at the inquest, Paul says nothing about informing Mizen about any death or drunkenness either.

This is the main reason why I say that it seems that Lechmere played matters down when speaking to Mizen: the PC claims to only have been told that the woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Which means that it could have been a question of anything, ranging from death over drunkenness and sickness to being too tired to want to get up.

If this was all Mizen was told, then he was left to speculate himself about the possible reasons for the woman lying in the street. But if it was added that another PC had requested his help, then the reasonable assumption would have been that something was afoot that called for help. It could be that the woman needed assistance to get to hospital, that she was dead and help was required to go for an ambulance, that she was drunk and obstinate and hindered the PC in Bucks Row to perform his duties in some manner - or anything else. The gist of the matter is that before Mizen went to Bucks Row, he could not know WHY he had been summoned - he would be obliged to rely on the judgment of his colleague in doing so.
No dead woman.
No dying woman.
No drunk woman.
Just a woman lying in the street. That was all Mizen said he was told.
If Lechmere was the killer, can everybody out here see how he would have gained from playing matters down? Can everybody see how the picture given to Mizen would have been one where the carmen seems NOT to have been the finders, but instead helpful passers-by, who were used as messenger boys by that illusive second PC?

So, gentlemen, before I leave you to your further explorations, I will urge you to look at the relevant material from all angels and ask yourself whether what you regard as truth is actually a proven matter - or if, like in this case, you are putting all your trust in the words of a man who has been suggested as the killer and a liar, whereas you ditch the testimony of the serving PC involved in the matter.

Hope this helps! Regardless if it does, I´m out again, leaving the matter in your able hands. Ehrm...!

Christer

Thank you for the observations.

And if I look at it from the point of view that Mizen is telling the truth( and I think he believed he was) that point does suggest that Mizen believed he had been called to give assistance in Bucks Row; but it does not look as if he believed it was an emergency.
However as far as I can tell he did not delay for more than a very brief period, to finish the knock up he was on anyway.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Ok,so the word drunk was mentioned.How does that alter or have an effect on what Mizen should have done.None,being as both Cross and Paul stressed that of the two ,dead or dying was the most probable.That's what should have motivated Mizen.A woman lay dead or dying,in a public place,at about three forty five in the morning,and he was aware of it..Admitted he didn't know it was murder.That's no excuse,his training and knowledge,(At least two women had in recent times been found murdered in similar circumstances)should have suggested it could be other than natural causes.So do not preach to me that the mention of the word drunk,excuses Mizen.It was an emergency,and he delayed in responding to that emergency.He was at fault.He could and finally did leave his allotted beat,he had a valid reason for doing so.So no,David,I do not need to reconsider.
Calling up was a priveledge,a private agreement between a police officer and members of the public,sanctioned by the department.It was not a police duty.So no David,as you claimed,he could not be dismissed for failing to call up,and under no circumstances would knocking up take preference over a reported instance of a woman lying dead or dying,in a public place,at about 3.45 in the morning.

Harry, you were the one who stated very clearly that there was no record of the word "drunk" being used by Paul or Lechmere, and when pointed out that it was, you now say it is unimportant.

In addition Smith had not been found in anything like similar circumstances had she?


With regards to the view on police duties, have you seen the interesting discussion between David and Monty, who as far as I am concerned is The expert on policing issues.
It can be found at

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8561

It puts it all into context and quotes the applicable police orders, very interesting read.

It is because you do not know the law David,that you fail to see how a police officer can compel a person to give a name and address,or in other words prove identification.The fact that it rarely happens,in no way shows that law does not exist.I have told you how to gain that knowledge,and I am not trying to prove anything to anyone,especially you,the information can be gained by studying the common law of England(Any police officer posting is entitled to inform me if I am wrong).
I will not say I am word perfect but here it is. A police officer may ask qestions of any person he believes can be of help.
A police officer can compel any person to prove identity,and may detain any person who fails to properly identify themselves,and hold them until identity is established.
But enough of this sidetracking.My belief is that neither Paul nor Cross lied,that they did not report to Mizen that a police officer needed his assistance.It was a fabrication of Mizens,and the reason he might lie has been given
I didn't say it took five minutes for Mizen to join Neil.I said up to five minutes.
In spite of your denial that my claim has never been published,David,You will find the reference in the Jack the Ripper A to Z.So another untruth from you.It's getting to be a habit.

Having searched the book, which is of course indispensable to us all, but certainly not Flawless, I could find only the following with regards to Mizen and 5 minutes, under the section on Nichols:


"Within five minutes, Police Constables Neil, Thain and Mizen were on the scene,"


That does not say what you claim does it?
Rather it says all 3 officers were present within 5 minutes of Paul and Lechmere leaving the scene.

I would not take that as literally accurate for a few simple reasons

1.We cannot know how long after Paul and Lechmere left the scene, Neil actually arrived at it; And so cannot from that observation deduce when the other two arrived.

2. There is no feasible way I can see that Mizen can be at the scene 5 minutes after Paul and Lechmere depart it

And of course nothing there tells us how long it took Mizen to reach Bucks Row.


If that is not the quote you have in mind, could you point towards it please?

As to how long after Neil, Mizen arrived?.Well Neil had not entered Bucks Row before Cross and Paul left Bucks Row?.It was only a short distance to the junction of Hanbury street and Bakers Row,and less than half a minute for Cross and Paul to inform Mizen.So had Mizen left immediately,it would have been before or about the time Neil came upon the body of Nichols.

Can you please explain your conclusions Harry?

The time from the murder site to the junction at a good walking pace is anywhere from 2 to 3 minutes. Google maps suggest approximately the same time for the equivalent walk using the modern road layout.

Paul and Lechmere leave the scene and walk to the junction, that is 2-3 mins, in that time it is perfectly possible and indeed probably that Neil arrived. If you disagree please show me where Harry?

On meeting Mizen they tell him of the woman, before he leaves for Bucks Row he finishes the knock up he is on, allow a total of 1.5 - 2 minutes for both of those activities, he then walks to Bucks Row again assume 2 - 3 minutes. That gives us 3.5-5 minutes.


5 minutes therefore seems a reasonable time.

I really do fail to see why you think he took a long time in responding, the facts do not seem to bear that out.

And as Neil had no reason to hurry,and Mizen a need to,Mizen could,in my opinion,had he left when he should have, have been no more than a minute behind Neil.

Again can you explain the logical reasoning behind this statement please. What does Neil's walking pace have to do with when he arrives in comparison to Mizen? It is probably he is there before Mizen even sees the two men.

Finally on the issue of timings,

we can extrapolate a rough timing for how long it would have taken Mizen to reach the scene from the time he meet the two men. I have done that in this post and in posts #1170 & 1153, if you disagree lets discuss that.


However there is no way at all ANYONE can extrapolate and say Mizen should have arrived no more than a minute after Neil as we do not know when Neil arrived do we?

We know Mizen delayed.

According to his testimony he did one more knock up, so a good assumption is approx 1 minute.

For how long doesn't really matter,he failed to respond to an emergency at the first opportunity.He was in breach of regulations.

But it was not an emergency, a body lying in the street, which was on another officers beat was not s an emergency.
He was told she was either dead or drunk, that was not seen as being an emergency, we may well have a different take on that today of course.

I see no breach of regulations, what I do see is a man who had been attacked in the press, possibly covering for himself, and very probably a misunderstanding over what was said on the night.



Steve

[Fisherman]

I am avoiding Casebook these days - but still reading it. And it occurred to me that I can add information when it seems needed, and then let you gentlemen discuss matters without me parttaking. There is too much acrimony and animosity out here for me to see any reason to engage in discussion otherwise.

So let´s try it and see what happens!

On this thread, people are now discussing whether Mizen was correct or not to leave his post. You seem to have arrived at the conclusion that Harry was wrong to say that Mizen was only told that the woman was dead or dying - there seems to be an agreement that Mizen was ALSO told that the woman could instead have been drunk.

So that is the "truth" at which the discussion has arrived: Mizen was told not only that the woman could be dead or dying, but also that it may be that she was instead drunk.

Actually, this is nowhere near the full truth. There is one source - and one source only - for this statement, and that source is Charles Lechmere. HE is the one who claims that Mizen was told that the woman was dead/dying or drunk. HE is the one saying that "the other man" (Paul) claimed that he thought that Nichols was dead.

In a matter like this, we can choose to believe whichever witness we want to. To believe in Mizen having been given the information that the woman in Bucks Row was dead/dying or drunk, we must accept that Lechmere told the truth.

If we look instead at what Mizen says, he never stated that he was told EITHER of these things. He says that what he was told was that there was a woman lying in the street and that there was a PC requesting his aid. Mizen never says a word about any claim on behalf of the carman who spoke to him that the woman was dead/dying or drunk. Not a iot.
Whoops.

This is - in my restrained world, at least - very, very important. It needs to be weighed in, before we announce that it is a fact that Mizen was told anything at all about the woman being either dead/dying or drunk.

The one person who could have settled this matter is Paul. But he never mentions anything about telling Mizen a single word about the woman being dead/dying or drunk either. In his paper interview, he says Mizen was told "what he had seen" - which could well amount to "a woman lying in the street" as well as "a woman who was dead/dying or drunk". And at the inquest, Paul says nothing about informing Mizen about any death or drunkenness either.

This is the main reason why I say that it seems that Lechmere played matters down when speaking to Mizen: the PC claims to only have been told that the woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row. Which means that it could have been a question of anything, ranging from death over drunkenness and sickness to being too tired to want to get up.

If this was all Mizen was told, then he was left to speculate himself about the possible reasons for the woman lying in the street. But if it was added that another PC had requested his help, then the reasonable assumption would have been that something was afoot that called for help. It could be that the woman needed assistance to get to hospital, that she was dead and help was required to go for an ambulance, that she was drunk and obstinate and hindered the PC in Bucks Row to perform his duties in some manner - or anything else. The gist of the matter is that before Mizen went to Bucks Row, he could not know WHY he had been summoned - he would be obliged to rely on the judgment of his colleague in doing so.
No dead woman.
No dying woman.
No drunk woman.
Just a woman lying in the street. That was all Mizen said he was told.
If Lechmere was the killer, can everybody out here see how he would have gained from playing matters down? Can everybody see how the picture given to Mizen would have been one where the carmen seems NOT to have been the finders, but instead helpful passers-by, who were used as messenger boys by that illusive second PC?

So, gentlemen, before I leave you to your further explorations, I will urge you to look at the relevant material from all angels and ask yourself whether what you regard as truth is actually a proven matter - or if, like in this case, you are putting all your trust in the words of a man who has been suggested as the killer and a liar, whereas you ditch the testimony of the serving PC involved in the matter.

Hope this helps! Regardless if it does, I´m out again, leaving the matter in your able hands. Ehrm...!