The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[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]

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.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Thanks David. That sounds reasonable to me.
So I ask again. Why do you think lech lied to him then?

[David Orsam]

Thanks David. That sounds reasonable to me.
So I ask again. Why do you think lech lied to him then?

I don't necessarily think that Abby. As I've said, it could have been a misunderstanding on Mizen's part.

But equally, as I've also said, Cross and Paul could have wanted to get to work without being dragged back to Bucks Row by Mizen, so they gave him the impression there was an officer already on the scene.

[Abby Normal]

I don't necessarily think that Abby. As I've said, it could have been a misunderstanding on Mizen's part.

But equally, as I've also said, Cross and Paul could have wanted to get to work without being dragged back to Bucks Row by Mizen, so they gave him the impression there was an officer already on the scene.

Agree with both parts.
Thanks for clarifying.

[harry]

So now it has come down to this.Mizen was not told of any circumstances that would require him to leave his beat.But he did leave his beat. Why?
Because he had been told he was wanted by another officer?
Now the only two people that could have told him this was Cross and Paul, whose evidence refutes the mention of a police officer being in Bucks Row,and from evidence available at the time,and evidence available to us now,there was no police officer present in Bucks Row.
Why would Cross and Paul lie. Why should they,both,in a time space of a few minutes,strangerrs to each other,conspire to lie,or both become so confused as not to remember whether or not there had been a police officer there.
Oh yes! They were late for work
I will not bother to answer the rest of the defence of Mizen.It's been answered already,by myself and other posters.
One only has to bear in mind the comments of Paul ,about Mizen leaving and continuing knocking up,that the chance of being dragged back to Bucks Row was nil.
I will answer the rest of your post David,when or if a police officer addresses my posts.
So the Up to five minutes was published.As Mizen was the last of the three officers,Mizen,Thain,Neil,to arrive where Nichols lay,the longest,five minutes,would concern Mizen.It is not known where Neil was on his beat,when Cross and Paul met Mizen,but as Neil did not see or hear them when he entered Bucks row,they were probably already in Baker Street.Neil would still have had some distance to go to the body,and no need for him to be hurrying,so one can I think,make an approximation.
Now if posters want to say I am using unsound sources,I'll remind them almost everything they post about Nichol's murder derive from hearsay evidence of newspapers.

[Fisherman]

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.

What I am saying, David, is that your take on what is evidence and what is not evidence leads you to write things like this one, about Mizen:

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

Like I say, we do NOT know for a fact that Mizen was aware that a woman was dead or drunk. Not at all, in fact. Based on the FULL evidence, it is just as likely that he only was aware that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, a version that would support my take on things very much, a version that is supported by evidence and a version that also needs to be taken into account. It does not mean that you must discard Lechmere´s evidence - but it means that you should NOT discard Mizens evidence either. The full picture, please!

Now I feel it is time to leave Casebook again for some time, before we are back to quibbling and acrimony again. I hope you can see my point, and if not, I at least tried.

[Elamarna]

So now it has come down to this.Mizen was not told of any circumstances that would require him to leave his beat.But he did leave his beat. Why?

Because he had been told he was wanted by another officer?
Now the only two people that could have told him this was Cross and Paul, whose evidence refutes the mention of a police officer being in Bucks Row,and from evidence available at the time,and evidence available to us now,there was no police officer present in Bucks Row.

Really where does one begin in attempting to answer this type of closed reply?
One in which it appears the Poster does not even listen to the other side of a debate, but replies to what they think is being said, a classic case of misunderstanding !



Harry we can have no clear idea why he went when he went, or indeed when that was. However one reason as given by David and myself was that he believed he had been told another PC had requested his help, a misunderstanding, of which several examples are been offered, it seems however that you do not even consider such could have happened.

Why would Cross and Paul lie. Why should they,both,in a time space of a few minutes,strangerrs to each other,conspire to lie,or both become so confused as not to remember whether or not there had been a police officer there.
Oh yes! They were late for work

That is not what I am suggesting, I have not said they lied. Nor for the most part does David appear to be either. The fact that you do not see that says so much, actually it much like the case itself, you believe that we are saying Paul and Lechmere lied, I am sure I am not saying that, just like Mizen believed he was told another PC wanted him.

Its is possible to have a conversation, where both sides think they know what is said, but both ave a different view of that conversation.


The possibility that David raises that they were late for work, cannot just be ignored without at least considering it, which appears to be the position you are taking.

I will not bother to answer the rest of the defence of Mizen.It's been answered already,by myself and other posters.

It is not a defence of Mizen, its an attempt to give an unbiased view, that’s how one gets to the truth, if at all possible; And with all due respect that is the problem, you appear to be starting from a position that he is guilty of something.

Indeed I am critical of much of Mizen's testimony, particular about what he saw in Bucks Row, there is no aim to defend him.

I will answer the rest of your post David,when or if a police officer addresses my posts.

Ah I see , despite the fact that regulations and guidelines from the Police and Home Office have been provide, you refuse to accept these?
What do you use, as support, to say these are not correct?

Where is Mr Marriott when you need him?

So the Up to five minutes was published.As Mizen was the last of the three officers,Mizen,Thain,Neil,to arrive where Nichols lay,the longest,five minutes,would concern Mizen.

I assume that you are agreeing the quote I posted was the one you were referring to.
It is indeed published, in that it is in the book, however it does not say that he arrived 5 minutes after Neil, but within 5 minutes of Paul and Lechmere leaving the body, that is very different, I do not understand why you cannot see that?

The quote does not appear to be backed by any source; Maybe Paul Begg, if he is reading could clarify that for us.

As David and I have pointed out, and you ignore, it cannot be accurate as we have no idea the time that the attack took place and it is not physically possible for Mizen to have done, all he is reported to have done and be back on site in 5 minutes.

It is not known where Neil was on his beat,when Cross and Paul met Mizen,but as Neil did not see or hear them when he entered Bucks row,they were probably already in Baker Street.Neil would still have had some distance to go to the body,and no need for him to be hurrying,so one can I think,make an approximation.

Why would he hear or see them if they were 30seconds plus in front of him?
The police by the way were meant to cover the beat in a set time, walk at a set pace, yet you seem to suggest Neil would be dawdling and somehow this as a bearing on Mizen's arrivial, that is just not logical.

There is no reason to believe that Paul and Lechmere were PROBABLY in Bakers Row, when Neil entered Bucks Row, its possible of course, but certainly not a probability, and such comments show bias, that is they are not backed by evidence, but by wishful thinking.

I notice that there is no attempt to question the timings I gave, which suggest that any delay by Mizen was minimal. Now you may not agree with those timings, indeed they are open to challenge, that was part of the point in posting them, but to just ignore them is rather poor way of dealing with assertion that the suggestion you made that he took a long time in reaching Bucks Row was not justified.

Now if posters want to say I am using unsound sources,I'll remind them almost everything they post about Nichol's murder derive from hearsay evidence of newspapers.

In which case lets just use the inquest testimony, which of course is made from newspaper reports the original not being available.

Lechmere said he told Mizen:

"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."

Mizen says :

"informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying."

Paul says nothing about it at all, all of his comments which refer to what he said and heard are in the Lloyds report (hearsay?)

So we have a straightforward case of 1to 1.

I see possible reasons that both may lie, but nothing which I feel is strong enough to make a call, a misunderstanding seems very possible.

(For those who believe Lech is the killer, that is a strong reason I agree, however that is in my view a bias, as is my view to assume he is not for this purpose. We all carry a bias one way or another).




Steve

[Patrick S]

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?

Why must he have dreamt it up in Buck's Row? Could he not have done so after reading Paul's less than flattering portrayal of his behavior in Lloyd's? He called Mizen's reaction, "a great shame", didn't he? Bear in mind also that Mizen allowed Neil to testify that he and he alone discovered the body. He was compelled to the stand AFTER Paul's account appeared in print. Is it not possible for Mizen "dream up" his version of events with him being told the situation was in hand, but that he was wanted by a PC, and with him NOT being told that the woman was dead.

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

You left out the fact that Paul agrees with Lechmere. Thus, we have two men agreeing that Mizen was told the woman was dead. Mizen
disagrees, but it should be clear why: Because what appeared in Lloyd's was embarrassing to both Mizen personally and the Met generally. Their handling of and failure to resolve Smith and Tabram hadn't exactly been hailed in the press as exemplary police work.

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

Again, Paul said he DID speak to Mizen. In his version, he does all the talking. So, tell us, why would Paul lie about his role? Why would he LIE and tell Lloyd's that he spoke to Mizen when he did not?

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

And THREE elements where Paul agrees with Lechmere:

1. Paul says nothing about a policeman in Bucks Row.
2. Paul says EXPLICITLY that Mizen was told the woman "was DEAD"!
3. Paul says that he DID speak to Mizen.

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

All three elements benefit Mizen if one supposes the Lloyd's article may have been perceived as less than flattering to Mizen and the Met.

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?

Easily. When two people agree and one disagrees we believe the two that agree.

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

See above bold.

[David Orsam]

What I am saying, David, is that your take on what is evidence and what is not evidence leads you to write things like this one, about Mizen:

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

Like I say, we do NOT know for a fact that Mizen was aware that a woman was dead or drunk. Not at all, in fact. Based on the FULL evidence, it is just as likely that he only was aware that a woman was lying flat on her back in Bucks Row, a version that would support my take on things very much, a version that is supported by evidence and a version that also needs to be taken into account. It does not mean that you must discard Lechmere´s evidence - but it means that you should NOT discard Mizens evidence either. The full picture, please!

I disagree with you entirely Fisherman. The full picture based on the evidence is that Mizen WAS told that a woman was lying dead or drunk.

This was the evidence of Cross which is not contradicted by the evidence of either Mizen or Paul (albeit that Mizen doesn't mention it in his account). Further I can see no good reason to doubt that this is what Mizen was told because, based on Paul's evidence, that is very likely to have been what both Cross and Paul concluded when they examined her in the dark, namely that she was either dead or drunk.

[David Orsam]

So now it has come down to this.Mizen was not told of any circumstances that would require him to leave his beat.But he did leave his beat. Why?
Because he had been told he was wanted by another officer?

Despite having explained to you repeatedly that this is not what I am saying, you still fail to absorb it. Consequently there isn't any point in continuing this discussion with you.

[David Orsam]

I will answer the rest of your post David,when or if a police officer addresses my posts.

For any police officer minded to come to Harry's aid, may I remind you that you do not have to say anything but anything you do say may be taken down and used against you in a future posting.

[moonbegger]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;410207]

"No longer under suspicion"?

Who says he was EVER under suspicion?

.

My apologies Fish , Of course I meant to say {Never under suspicion} And for very good reason .. He obviously explained away all the inquest room confusion, and they clearly believed him .. Now that could make him the most cunning and callous killer that ever lived , dancing in-between the raindrops that was the dumbest inquest jurors , coroner and police force that ever showed up for duty.. Or more logically speaking , that could make him an individual who found a body and got caught up in a spiders web of confusion ..

moon

[harry]

Steve,
What closed reply?I have given the information as I see it. We have Mizen,Cross and Paul at the junction of Baker and Hanbury street.Mizen is given information that a woman lies in Bucks Row,either dead ,dying or drunk,Mizen appears to make no reply,and continues knocking up.Cross and Paul continue on their way to work.Other posters say the same thing.How am I not seeing their point of view?How am I not listening to the other side? Where do I differ?

If you have no idea of when Mizen started out for Bucks Row,then you have no idea of how long he continued knocking up,so why object to my claim that the interval,no matter how long or short it was,was unnecessasary.Yes we do have a fairly good idea of why he finally went there.Leaving the drunk bit aside,it was because he had been given information a woman was lying dead or dying in Buck Row.What else?
I was asking why Cross and Paul should lie,not you or David.Get your facts straight.
Why is late for work significant?That Mizen did not demand anything of Paul and Cross, left them free to continue on,and late for work was a remark that appeared factual.Cannot fault either Cross or Paul on that remark,or continuing to work.
The truth will never be known.The most one can hope for is reaching a belief.
and yes I do believe Mizen lied.That is not bias.it is an appreciation of the reported information.
I haven't refused to accept anything regarding regulations
"The police could leave their beat for a variety of limited reasons,but it basically needed to be an emergency"
Is that the regulation you mean.Why not spell it out,I have.
It is a matter of interpretation of the 5 minute arrival.I am as entitled to my view as you are to yours,and to differ if need be.My point is that it had been published,whereas I had been accused of making things up.
The regulations and guidlines from the police and home office have been provided.You name them,and in particular, specify which regulation gave constables the right to give calling up preference over attending a dead or dying woman.
Why mention Trevor Marriot?.Yes, he would leave you for dead when it comes to police matters,and I would sure solicit his advice over yours,but I believe he would agree I am doing ok on my own.
There are no official inquest papers,I am led to believe,only newspaper reports of the inquest.So hearsay,but I may be wrong.

[David Orsam]

There are no official inquest papers,I am led to believe,only newspaper reports of the inquest.So hearsay,but I may be wrong.

Yes Harry, you are wrong to categorise newspaper reporting of court proceedings as "hearsay".

Mind you, as your entire argument about Mizen's knowledge and actions that morning can only be based on information derived from newspaper reports of the inquest it is odd that you want to trash your own sources.