The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[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]

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]

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.

I don't know what you are talking about. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. As it happens, you have selectively answered some of my questions while avoiding others.

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.

What has the issue of "how police investigated murder" got to do with anything? Mizen wasn't told there had been a murder (and neither Paul nor Cross knew there had been) so it's irrelevant isn't it? And quite a lot has changed since 1888 in respect of how police investigate murders in any case. Just look at how the crime scenes were dealt with in 1888. As for "Judges decisions and rulings" which explained "how law enforcement officers should interact with the public" in 1888, could you perhaps give me an example of what you mean because, frankly, I think you are making this stuff up off the top of your head?

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.

Under what law could they have been compelled to give their names?

I don't think you are right but if there was such a law, and Paul and Cross knew of it, then there is the motive for them to have lied right there isn't it, because that would have delayed them from going to work wouldn't it?

The most important thing is what Paul and Cross thought might happen. Do you think they were experts on the legal rights of citizens when asked to accompany a police officer back to where a body is lying? If they just thought they might be dragged back, then there is the motive.

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.

I have never said that Mizen would not lie under oath nor do I think that he would not have done. I am asking you to explain why you believe he would have lied under oath bearing in mind that you say he had reasonable cause to go to Bucks Row. That's the question you consistently avoid answering. If nothing else could you just answer THAT question. What was Mizen's reason for lying?

What I understand of knocking up is it was a service performed by police,and never took precedence over normal police duties.

Well then I suggest that you don't understand knocking up because, although it was a service, it was a normal police duty in 1888, for which neglect by a constable would be reported and punished.

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.

I didn't ask you about the performance required to knock up. I asked you what Mizen said in his evidence about knocking up. A question you have avoided answering.

[harry]

Mizen didn't have to be told there was a murder,the knowledge that a woman w as dead or dying was sufficient for him to act.He couldn't rule out murder.
How police investigate murder has everything to do with the Nichol's case.The investigation can start with what I have w ritten above.
Under w hat law could a person be compelled to give a name, In England ,the common law.
Murder was a common law crime.If I was making this up from the top of my head,I am sure the police who post here would pull me up.
I have not avoided answering any of your questions.The reason why Mizen would have been in error,has been given by other posters.No need for me to
add anything.
We do not know what Cross and Paul were thinking,or the level of their knowledge of police powers.That morning there was no need to show it,or to lie.
Mizen did nothing to detain them or coop their assistance.For your information I have never been a police officer,but I know these things.
Mizen said in his evidence,he finished a knocking up,so I suppose it means he had been interrupted in an act of doing so.The evidence of Cross and Paul appears to suggest he was in the street,and not knocking on anything.
Knocking up was a service.It did not take precedence over a reported case of a woman lying dead or dying.
That's answered all your questions.I now await the deluge of postings proving I am wrong.Yours David,I will ignore.

[drstrange169]

Mizen’s testimony is a tricky one.


He comes to the witness box an accused man, thanks to Paul’s story in Lloyds. So it would not be surprising if he was a bit defensive in describing his actions. When it comes to the “knocking up” story, the papers (and probably Mizen too) gave contradictory stories.


The bulk of the papers don’t mention the incident, but three newspapers report Mizen as denying knocking anyone up,


“By the Jury - Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up.”
The Echo


“It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He By the Jury - Witness went to the spot directly Cross told him, and did not stop to knock any one up. He went there immediately.”
The Star


“He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up.”
The Times


These appear clear denials.

The East London Observer and the Daily News carried a story from the same source and give a fuller albeit contradictory version,


“A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person.”

Here, Mizen, first denied knocking anybody up, then acknowledged that actually he did continue knocking up, but then qualifies it by saying it was only one person.


The Illustrated Police News gives the fullest account that I have found,


“In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.”

All these versions are at odds, to varying degrees, with Paul and Xmere’s stories.

Paul, in the Lloyds article is quoted as saying,


“I saw one (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, 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."

Xmere in The Star, refutes the Illustrated Police News story that Mizen, “finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time”. He claimed,

“After Mizen had been told there was a woman lying in Buck's-row he went out and knocked at a door. He did not go towards Buck's-row to do this.”

[Joshua Rogan]

The East London Observer and the Daily News carried a story from the same source and give a fuller albeit contradictory version,

“A Juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Witness: No; I only finished knocking up one person.”

Here, Mizen, first denied knocking anybody up, then acknowledged that actually he did continue knocking up, but then qualifies it by saying it was only one person.

Good post, Dusty. If I may nitpick slightly, I don't feel Mizen contradicts himself. He doesn't deny knocking "anybody" up, he denies knocking "people" up, i.e. more than one person. His clarification that he finished knocking just the one person up is therefore consistent.

[Abby Normal]

Good post, Dusty. If I may nitpick slightly, I don't feel Mizen contradicts himself. He doesn't deny knocking "anybody" up, he denies knocking "people" up, i.e. more than one person. His clarification that he finished knocking just the one person up is therefore consistent.

I agree with this. I really don't see where Mizen is at fault for anything.

[David Orsam]

Dusty,

I don't think you are being quite fair to PC Mizen in using the abridged reports of his testimony to suggest that he first denied knocking people up then admitted it, or that there is some inconsistency in his story. As the fullest reports make clear, what he said was that he did not continue knocking people up but he finished the knocking up job he was already engaged on.

Paul's "story" in the newspaper (not supported by any testimony) is of no value because, when you think about it, how long could Paul have possibly spent witnessing what Mizen did next, given that he was hurrying off to work? The same is true of Cross. From Mizen's attitude, they both thought they had been ignored, but they were wrong.

[David Orsam]

Mizen didn't have to be told there was a murder,the knowledge that a woman w as dead or dying was sufficient for him to act.He couldn't rule out murder.
How police investigate murder has everything to do with the Nichol's case.The investigation can start with what I have w ritten above.
Under w hat law could a person be compelled to give a name, In England ,the common law.
Murder was a common law crime.If I was making this up from the top of my head,I am sure the police who post here would pull me up.
I have not avoided answering any of your questions.The reason why Mizen would have been in error,has been given by other posters.No need for me to
add anything.
We do not know what Cross and Paul were thinking,or the level of their knowledge of police powers.That morning there was no need to show it,or to lie.
Mizen did nothing to detain them or coop their assistance.For your information I have never been a police officer,but I know these things.
Mizen said in his evidence,he finished a knocking up,so I suppose it means he had been interrupted in an act of doing so.The evidence of Cross and Paul appears to suggest he was in the street,and not knocking on anything.
Knocking up was a service.It did not take precedence over a reported case of a woman lying dead or dying.
That's answered all your questions.I now await the deluge of postings proving I am wrong.Yours David,I will ignore.

Harry,

When you say that knocking up did not take precedence over a reported case of a woman lying dead or dying you forgot to add "or drunk and in another officer's beat". Further, if as you say, Mizen couldn't rule out murder then why did he need to invent a policeman in his testimony? He's been told there's been a murder (or possibly a murder) so off he goes to investigate. Why does he need to tell a lie about any of this?

It's all very well saying other people have offered explanations but not only are those explanations inconsistent with each other but they are not generally based on Mizen having a reasonable cause to go to Bucks Row, which is why I am asking you for your explanation: but you refuse to give it. And I wasn't, incidentally, asking you for an explanation as to why Mizen was "in error", as you put it, I was asking you why he lied.

As for your claim that somehow "the common law" required people walking along the street to give their names and addresses to a police officer, you have proved that you are simply making it all up as you go along.

[Joshua Rogan]

When you say that knocking up did not take precedence over a reported case of a woman lying dead or dying you forgot to add "or drunk and in another officer's beat".

Not only another officer's beat, but one in another division - Mizen was from H Division, Neil from J. I'm not sure if this would have had any bearing on his willingness to head to Buck's Row (possibly not, judging from the alacrity with which City police headed into Met territory after Kate's killing....mind you, they definitely knew they were dealing with a murder). Does anyone know if this would have even crossed his mind?

[David Orsam]

Not only another officer's beat, but one in another division

Yes, indeed, a point I made memorably (or perhaps not so memorably) in #1135.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, indeed, a point I made memorably (or perhaps not so memorably) in #1135.

So you did! But as it seems to have been somewhat overlooked (by me, at least) I think it deserves to be raised again.

[harry]

Drunk doesn't come into the argument.Mizen was told a woman was lying dead or dying.There is no record of Cross or Paul stating drunk to Mizen.W hose making things up?
Another division,another mans's beat.Tell me of an occasion when this has or would prevent a police officer from investigating a report of a woman lying dead or dying,on a pubic street,at about 3.45 in the morning?in 1888 or today.So that's meaningless.
Mizen did go to Bucks Row,of his own accord,which in itself, supports my arguement that he could and should have done so.Immediately,there was no reason why he couldn't.
That he didn't do so immediately,was his problem.How long he delayed is not known,what has been published is that it was up to five minutes before he joined Neil and Thain in Bucks Row.Why so long?
I have not said that the common law requires people walking along a street to give their names and addresses to police officers,That is a complete lie.
What I said was that a police officer can/could compel a person to give that information.That Mizen didn't take the names of Cross or/and Paul,was, as other posters have pointed out,a mistake
So I have been accused of making things up.Let the poster,or indeed anyone who says or thinks so,step forward and prove it.

[FrankO]

I agree with this. I really don't see where Mizen is at fault for anything.

According to Mizen’s own statement, Abby, he was only told that there was a woman lying in the street and that a policeman wanted him there. Nothing more. This alone doesn’t necessarily present the emergency that was necessary for him to leave his beat. Why would a fellow PC call for his assistance when there was no emergency? Or why would he send people for his assistance without letting Mizen know the emergency?

In order to get a better picture of the situation, at the very least, a couple of questions to Cross & Paul would have been in order. After all, Mizen WAS being called away from his beat, but – as far as he could tell – he didn’t know what the emergency was, if there even was one. For all he knew, as has been suggested by others, these 2 men could also just not have wanted him there for nefarious reasons.

So, I wouldn’t say Mizen wasn’t at fault for anything. Either he omitted that Cross & Paul had told him that the woman was possibly dead or they didn’t tell him and he neglected to ask any questions. Either way, he wasn’t the best he could have been.

All the best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Drunk doesn't come into the argument.Mizen was told a woman was lying dead or dying.There is no record of Cross or Paul stating drunk to Mizen.W hose making things up?

Actually harry you are incorrect there I am afraid.

The inquest testimony as given on this site says:


From Cross:


"She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. "




This is backed by the press in general, I quote below from The Times of the 4th and The Star from the 3rd.

"They went to Baker's-row, saw the last witness, and told him there was a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead. The constable replied "All right."




"They went up Baker's-row, and saw the last witness. Witness said to him, "There's a woman lying down in Buck's-row on the broad of her back. I think she's dead or drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead."




It is therefore clear that Mizen was told that she was either dead or DRUNK.
To say that such is not recorded is obviously incorrect.

Mizen did go to Bucks Row,of his own accord,which in itself, supports my arguement that he could and should have done so.Immediately,there was no reason why he couldn't.
That he didn't do so immediately,was his problem.How long he delayed is not known,what has been published is that it was up to five minutes before he joined Neil and Thain in Bucks Row.Why so long?

Harry there are real problems with any report of how long it took one policeman to reach another: we have no idea if the time pieces the officer were using, if any, were synchronized to each other.
We have Neil claiming he is there at 3.45, the same time that Paul claims he is, so one of them is in all probability wrong.
We cannot know when exactly Paul and Lechmere reached Mizen, nor what time Mizen he got back to Neil, and I have seen no record that Mizen gives timings according to any time piece he was carrying.


However if we apply some analysis of the various evidence we can see that the time taken to walk that distance was about 2-3 minutes.
If the conversation between Mizen and the two men took only 1 minute and he continued to finish his last knock up, has he says in his testimony, we can allow at least another 30seconds for that.
We now stand at about 4.5 minutes from the time Mizen encounters the Men, until he reaches Neil, which in itself seems reasonable, the only way it could be faster would be if he ran.
I fail to see why you think about 5minutes is longer than expected.




Steve