The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[harry]

David,the reasons I will not answer all your questions,is like you excused yourself in a previous post,it's all been done before.
Policies and common law had everything to do with how police investigated murder.Judges decisions and rulings explained how law enforcement officers should interact with the public.As they do today.Little has changed in that respect.
Along with the power of officers,were the rights of citizens.Cross and Paul could not be dragged back to Bucks Row.They could be requested to go,a different thing.They w ere not so requested.They could be compelled to give their names.They w ere not asked to do so.They had no motive to lie.
I have never considered it a case of misunderstanding on Mizen's part ,simply because I believe he lied.You however, from a position of he w ould not lie under oath so ,there must have been mention of a policeman by Cross and/or Paul,now talks of a misunderstanding on Mizen's part.
What I understand of knocking up is it was a service performed by police,and never took precedence over normal police duties.As to the actual performance required to knock up,I do not know,but I would expect the officer engaged to w ait for a response from those knocked up,before moving on,and how long that might take is anyones guess.
Now that is keeping to the relevent issues.

[David Orsam]

I have read the evidence,David,of all those that were involved.
New methods have certainly been introduced in the ensuing years,but basically,as a poster pointed out,policies remain much the same.The law has changed little.Y es capital punishment is no longer,the caution has been modified,transport has relaced foot patrol,science has improved,but the common law still prevails.
As for being late for work,they would have been concerned,but not to the extent that,within the space of just over a couple of hundred yards,and perhaps three or four minutes in time,before meeting a police officer,they would have been so confused as to w hether they had themselves made the de cision to seek a police officer,or have been directed by a police officer,when it is clear that no such officer was present.That ability w ould not have changed.
Both of them?.It is not me that needs to study the evidence.
Only Mizen introduces the other policeman presence,and reasons have been given as to why he might lie.
Apart from that, there is one curious aspect that seems not to have been observed.It concerns the police in general and Neil in particular.It's staring one in the face.

What poster has pointed out that "policies" remained much the same? And what do "policies" and the common law have to do with this discussion? I'm talking about the rules and regulations which governed how a police officer in Charles Warren's Metropolitan Police Force operated. And these were very different in 1888 to how they are today.

Nothing you have said in your post meets the points I have raised. I certainly did not say that Cross and Paul were "confused" about whether they had seen a police officer. I said they had a motive to lie about there being a police officer so that they wouldn't be dragged back to Bucks Row and could get to work.

You've also totally ignored the possibility of a simple misunderstanding on Mizen's part.

You say that reasons have been given why Mizen might lie but these are based on Mizen not having had a "good reason" to go to Bucks Row aren't they? The reason I have been challenging your posts is that you say that he DID have a "good reason" to go to Bucks Row so could you explain why he didn't tell the truth to the coroner?

I also don't think you have understood the evidence. Why don't you tell us what Mizen said in his evidence about the knocking up? Do you also know what the rules were about knocking up for police officers in 1888?

And I don't want to be diverted by any other issues. I want to know why you think Mizen lied in court about having been told there was a policeman in Bucks Row if he had a "good reason" to leave his beat to go to Bucks Row.

[harry]

I have read the evidence,David,of all those that were involved.
New methods have certainly been introduced in the ensuing years,but basically,as a poster pointed out,policies remain much the same.The law has changed little.Y es capital punishment is no longer,the caution has been modified,transport has relaced foot patrol,science has improved,but the common law still prevails.
As for being late for work,they would have been concerned,but not to the extent that,within the space of just over a couple of hundred yards,and perhaps three or four minutes in time,before meeting a police officer,they would have been so confused as to w hether they had themselves made the de cision to seek a police officer,or have been directed by a police officer,when it is clear that no such officer was present.That ability w ould not have changed.
Both of them?.It is not me that needs to study the evidence.
Only Mizen introduces the other policeman presence,and reasons have been given as to why he might lie.
Apart from that, there is one curious aspect that seems not to have been observed.It concerns the police in general and Neil in particular.It's staring one in the face.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;409839]No, apart from all the rules and regulations being different, the police code being different, the duties being different and the completely different Victorian society in 1888, it's all exactly the same.[QUOTE]

Something that is often overlooked as people try to apply today's norms to 1888.

[QUOTE]Well for a start your premise is wrong that he "chose" to carry on knocking up. You need to read his evidence.

It is bizarre to believe that he lied under oath when, in your view, he didn't need to because he had a good reason to do what he did.[QUOTE]

As for why Paul and Cross might have lied, isn't it perfectly obvious that they were late for work and might not have wanted to be forced to lead Mizen back to where the body was?

Alternatively, might one of them not just have said "You are wanted in Bucks Row" which Mizen (wrongly but understandably) interpreted as meaning that he was wanted by another policeman?

I'm not saying anything new here incidentally.

I've long suspected that's what happened, "Your wanted in Bucks Row" gets there (eventually) to find other police ad a dead body, his (human) memory recalls it as "You're wanted by a copper down in Bucks Row" just human.

[David Orsam]

I do not believe that'Knocking up'is the most important point,or that policing has changed dramatically.

No, apart from all the rules and regulations being different, the police code being different, the duties being different and the completely different Victorian society in 1888, it's all exactly the same.

Mizen was faced with a choice.To act on information supplied by members of the public,that a woman w as lying either dead or dying in Bucks row,which was clearly police business,or carry on doing something that was only a service,and of minorr importance.
The fact that he chose the later,even though it was of short endurance,shows lack of judgement'
It is not bizzare to believe Mizen lied,or that he wouldn't lie under oath.Crime history abounds with evidence of people lying under oath,including police officers.
If Mizens understanding was that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row?
We today know,as Cross and Paul then knew,there was no police officer in Bucks Row when they(Paul/Cross) left,and I have seen no sensible argument of why they should lie about that particular circumstance,or misunderstand, a few minutes later on meeting Mizen.
So where did Mizen's understanding come from?

Well for a start your premise is wrong that he "chose" to carry on knocking up. You need to read his evidence.

It is bizarre to believe that he lied under oath when, in your view, he didn't need to because he had a good reason to do what he did.

As for why Paul and Cross might have lied, isn't it perfectly obvious that they were late for work and might not have wanted to be forced to lead Mizen back to where the body was?

Alternatively, might one of them not just have said "You are wanted in Bucks Row" which Mizen (wrongly but understandably) interpreted as meaning that he was wanted by another policeman?

I'm not saying anything new here incidentally.

[harry]

Thanks Dave.

[Cogidubnus]

FWIW I agree Harry

Dave

[harry]

I do not believe that'Knocking up'is the most important point,or that policing has changed dramatically.Mizen was faced with a choice.To act on information supplied by members of the public,that a woman w as lying either dead or dying in Bucks row,which was clearly police business,or carry on doing something that was only a service,and of minorr importance.
The fact that he chose the later,even though it was of short endurance,shows lack of judgement'
It is not bizzare to believe Mizen lied,or that he wouldn't lie under oath.Crime history abounds with evidence of people lying under oath,including police officers.
If Mizens understanding was that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row?
We today know,as Cross and Paul then knew,there was no police officer in Bucks Row when they(Paul/Cross) left,and I have seen no sensible argument of why they should lie about that particular circumstance,or misunderstand, a few minutes later on meeting Mizen.
So where did Mizen's understanding come from?

[David Orsam]

It is more of a belief in what I would expect a police officer's reaction to be,based on my own experience,and what I understand to be a police officer;s responsibility.I have ,'Walked the beat".

Based on your own experience of policing under the rules which applied to Metropolitan police constables in 1888???

How many people did you wake up by "knocking up" in the morning while walking the beat Harry?

What I do not believe,is that Cross and Paul,having left Nichol's body with the intention of seeking a police officer,and having had no contact with any other police officer,would, a few minutes later, upon meeting a police officer,lie about another police officer being present in Bucks Row.

Yet, bizarrely, you seem to believe that a police officer lied under oath in public at an inquest even though you accept that he had "good reason" to leave his beat.

The thing is, you don't have to believe that Cross and Paul lied. In your own experience, have you never heard of a misunderstanding? Have you never been involved in a conversation in which you haven't heard someone properly and thought they said something else or vice versa?

If Mizen's understanding was that a police officer wanted him in Bucks Row then that was a good reason for him to leave his beat was it not?

[MysterySinger]

That's a good point Harry.

[harry]

It is more of a belief in what I would expect a police officer's reaction to be,based on my own experience,and what I understand to be a police officer;s responsibility.I have ,'Walked the beat".

What I do not believe,is that Cross and Paul,having left Nichol's body with the intention of seeking a police officer,and having had no contact with any other police officer,would, a few minutes later, upon meeting a police officer,lie about another police officer being present in Bucks Row.

[David Orsam]

I have given an instance of why Mizen could have left his beat without breaking rules.

Do you mean it is no more than a hypothetical example?

It's unlikely to be the actual reason Mizen left his beat though isn't it? For if it was, he would surely have said so at the inquest.

[harry]

I have given an instance of why Mizen could have left his beat without breaking rules.I will not enter an argument as to whether we should value one man's word against another's.

[David Orsam]

Thanks for the elaboration Steve.

[Elamarna]

Well I don't think Harry's scenario works whether one believes Mizen or not.

Harry was suggesting that Mizen had "good reason" to investigate outside of his own beat because he believed the beat officer was unaware of the body lying in his beat.

If that was the case then why didn't Mizen explain this to the coroner?

That's what doesn't make any sense. If Mizen had good reason to walk to Bucks Row then there was no need to lie. So I fail to see how Harry's scenario is any way plausible. If Mizen was telling the truth (as he understood it) it makes no sense. If Mizen was lying it makes no sense.

David I think I may not have made my point clear. Those who have convinced themselves he lied about all or was somehow covering up from beginning to end believe that he was at fault.

Yes I do not see harry's view either.

For what it is worth I feel the guy acted in good faith on the night and that he may; I say may have attempted to cover himself after Paul's press article, which did not portray him in a good light.

I consider his later testimony for the events after he arrived at Bucks Row to have been misinterpreted by some rathrer than his being dishonest.

Hope that is clear.


Steve