The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Elamarna]

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?

The main point I see is that you apparently will not consider the possibility of a misunderstanding rather than deliberate lie by any of those involved.

As for Mizen not replying, both Paul and Lech say that he did give a reply, it may not be much of one but he did reply.
With regards to continuing knocking up, Paul and Lechmere say he continued and they walked away.
Mizen agrees, and says he did one more, or rather completed what he was doing; there is no disagreement between the two men and Mizen on that. It seems that we have only what Mizen's says under oath, and I see no reason to suggest he did more than the one.

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.

Those two ideas are do not exclude each other,

We have no idea of the actual time he started because we have no firm idea of the time he met Paul and Lechmere, we can however make a calculation to how long after they left Nichols they encountered him.
we know the distance involved and we have good information on walking speeds, so can estimate a range.

It is perfectly logical to say he left after he completed knocking up one more as that is inline with what he swore under oath and is not counter to that of Lechmere or the paper report of Paul. we can estimate how long that would take.
Therefore not knowing what time he started back to Bucks Row, does not prevent us from estimating how long after he meet Paul and Lechmere he started back.

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?

Why are you leaving the drunk bit aside, it is what reportedly was said.

Lechmere says "Dead or drunk", there is no mention of "dying" in his testimony. neither dead or drunk are significant reasons to leave the beat, they were not seen as emergencies if on another beat, and in another police division to boot.

It would however make sense for him to go, if he believed his assistance and been requested by another officer.

I was asking why Cross and Paul should lie,not you or David.Get your facts straight.

I replied that I was not saying they had lied, I seriously believe that they said, "you are needed in Bucks Row", and Mizen interpreted that as "you are needed by another officer", and when he arrived and saw one he assumed it to be true.
At no point have I suggested you were saying David or I might have lied, Not sure where that comment comes from.

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.

It was David’s view that it could be significant, I merely suggested we should analysis it to see if he stood up to scrutiny at all.

If they were Detained by Mizen, and were late for work, they face loss of earnings, and even loss of job. That seems to suggest it is a plausible reason, however it's not one I am working to.

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.

That is your view, fair enough

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.

So did I Harry in post # 1174, provided a link to the thread where David and Monty discuss this issue; Sorry I am not going to re post a whole thread, but here is the link again:

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

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.

I never said you had made it up, merely that it did not say what you said it did. Yes it is about interpretation, however I fail to see how it can possibly be interpreted as Mizen arrived up to five minutes after Neil, when it clearly says all 3 arrived within 5 minutes of Paul and Neil leaving the body.

Please look at the timings involved Harry, it is just not possible for Mizen to be there 5 minutes after Paul and Lechmere leave.

Either tomorrow or Monday I will post a table of timings for all concerned in the case. Of course these are relative to each other and not absolute, as we have no confirmed actual time for any of it. You may find it of interest.

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.

Included in the link above Harry.,

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.

I mention Trevor purely because he was a policeman, and the only one I know for sure on this forum was one. He could give an answer from that point of view, it would one hopes clear up the issue one way or the other.
Yes I would certainly take his view on policing over that of my own, and was thus wishing he would post.

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

The point was that you appeared to be saying that people were challenging you base on hearsay, and I was say, everything in this case is based on newspaper reports, however to call the reports of the inquest hearsay is I venture incorrect.

If that was not what you meant, I misunderstood and am sorry for that.


Steve

[David Orsam]

If they were Detained by Mizen, and were late for work, they face loss of earnings, and even loss of job. That seems to suggest it is a plausible reason, however it's not one I am working to.

Detained in non-physical, non-legal sense of course.

One other possibility I should add is that they might have feared that Mizen would send one of them off to a police station to report the matter (which would certainly have been the ideal police scenario for a non-emergency, enabling Mizen to remain on his beat). Obviously he had no power to compel anyone to do it but could they have properly and reasonably refused? At the very least they could have been open to criticism for not assisting.

Telling Mizen that he was being called by a fellow police officer would have been neat trick to allow them on their way to work unobstructed.

[Joshua Rogan]

I seriously believe that they said, "you are needed in Bucks Row", and Mizen interpreted that as "you are needed by another officer", and when he arrived and saw one he assumed it to

Is it possible that Cross actually said something like "a policeman's needed in Buck's Row"?

[Harry D]

Much ado about nothing...

[harry]

Right you are HarryD But as I w as accused of making things up,I have a right to reply,and what else of interest is being discussed'.

Being as the newspapers are reporting events,theirs is a copy of what transpired in court,and word for word cannot be compared to the official transcript which I believe had not been published
.How mant times have I read on this site,that newspaper accounts cannot be trusted for accuracy.So I do not consider hearsay a wrong
description,and that is not an opinion that we should completely reject such reports either.

Ellerama.
Your first point is wrong.Nowhere have I rejected the possibility of a misunderstanding,all I have given is an opinion/belief that Mizen probably lied,but do I tell you or anyone else they should form the same opinion/belief.
If as you say Mizen did reply,what did he say?

Again you are relying on Mizen telling the truth.Yours is an opinion.Maybe he did only knock up only once more.Who knows? Does that excuse him putting a private agreement before attending the incident at Bucks Row.

So why,if as you say we can estimate the speed of movement,do you object to my calculations.The unknown factor is how Neil was patrolling,and his position when Cross and Paul met Mizen.

I have already explained that drunk,in my opinion,should be ignored.It is clear to me that Cross and Paul would not have sought the aid of a policeman if they believed Nichols to just be drunk,so the words dead or dying can be accepted,and that is the words that should have been acted upon by Mizen,immediately,before any more knocking up.My opinion.

Lets not get into the If this or that situation.From what is reported,Mizen did or said nothing that needed Cross or Paul to stay or do anthing,not even give identification,so they were in their rights to continue on to work.His was the responsibility,not theirs.

Other policemen post here so why mention Trevor?I would suggest you haven't been too carefull in following the site if you believe Trevor to be the only one.

As I said,my interpretation of the 5 minute timing was that Mizen, being the last constable to arrive,could have been up to 5 minutes after Neil.Might that not suggest something?

One final say.I asked for a police rule or order that would specifically state that knocking up take preference over a reported incidence of a woman lying dead or dying,on an adjoining beat.
Oh! and what has been your police experience. Ever served in law enforcement?

[Elamarna]

Right you are HarryD But as I w as accused of making things up,I have a right to reply,and what else of interest is being discussed'.

The truth is Harry that you claimed the word "drunk" had never been recorded, you were very clear and strong on that view. Given that such was incorrect I posted to point this out.

Being as the newspapers are reporting events,theirs is a copy of what transpired in court,and word for word cannot be compared to the official transcript which I believe had not been published
.How mant times have I read on this site,that newspaper accounts cannot be trusted for accuracy.So I do not consider hearsay a wrong
description,and that is not an opinion that we should completely reject such reports either.

Direct quotes such as interviews and recording of inquests are not hearsay.
To say such are, suggests a lack of understanding of sources. I am sounding like Pierre; Sorry.

Ellerama.
Your first point is wrong.Nowhere have I rejected the possibility of a misunderstanding,all I have given is an opinion/belief that Mizen probably lied,but do I tell you or anyone else they should form the same opinion/belief.
If as you say Mizen did reply,what did he say?

If you have not rejected it, why do you not consider it or ever acknowledge that it is a possibility?

What did Mizen say?

According to Lechmere, with his testimony:

" The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on."


As I said before maybe not a great reply, but an acknowledgement none the less.

Pauls's press statement in Lloyds Weekly 2nd September, merely says he did not reply that he would attend the scene not that he did not reply

"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"


And this is how we started this conversation, it seemed you had not checked what was said by Paul and Lechmere about the state of Nichols, and it appears you have not checked this either, as you claimed in post #1199:

" Mizen appears to make no replyy "

That statement is not backed by the available evidence, and it's all available on this site!

Again you are relying on Mizen telling the truth.Yours is an opinion.Maybe he did only knock up only once more.Who knows? Does that excuse him putting a private agreement before attending the incident at Bucks Row.

My opinion yes, but based on the evidence of all 3 men involved, there is nothing, absolutely nothing to suggest he did more than the one.

And it was not a private agreement, with all due respect, how many more times does this need to be explained and links provided to sources which back that view?

And of course, he did stop knocking up and go to Bucks row did he not?

So why,if as you say we can estimate the speed of movement,do you object to my calculations.The unknown factor is how Neil was patrolling,and his position when Cross and Paul met Mizen.

The estimates you have suggested are not backed by details of the calculations used to reach them.
The ones I am working on, are derived from the statements of all involved, the actual distances and beats involved, and known walking speeds.

In addition, where routes are largely unchanged, such as the walk from Bucks Row to the junction of the Hanbury Street/ Bakers Row (yes the names have changed, but the route is still basically the same) actual timed walks are compared.

An example, pertinent to this debate;

The distance from the murder site to the junction of Bakers Row/ Hanbury street was in 1888 approximately 316 yards, (measurement from two separate maps of the period).

Normal walking speed is given by many sources on the internet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiGnvn169DSAhXlD8AKHYJvDaAQFghXMA0&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FPreferred_walking_speed&usg=AFQjCNF1_3E3Lic5LZaDCy3LYZEYukinsA&sig2=53z-IoE-d5fVfDsWc6-mEQ

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=18&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiGnvn169DSAhXlD8AKHYJvDaAQFgh2MBE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.verywell.com%2Fhow-fast-is-brisk-walking-3436887&usg=AFQjCNFVe3gT4uwag2QNpF3kavGaFBNRBw&sig2=4_aumA5rpg4Z9ZOMN5He7g

https://www.reference.com/health/average-human-walking-speed-8df1ec5d0858683e

We can therefore assume an average speed of just over 3miles per hour today, which coincidentally is the speed the Police were walking at, on night beats at the time.

However it is probably that speeds have increase since 1888, as humans have become fitter. which means we must be careful about absolutes.

In addition if people are hurrying they may walk faster than the standard 3.1mph.

Therefore there are alternatives, and all should be looked:

If Paul and Lechmere walked at 3mph the journey would take 3min 36 seconds to complete.

If they walked at 4mph the time is 2minutes 42 seconds, and if they walked at 5mph the time taken would be 2minutes 10 seconds.

Looking at the available evidence, walking at 5mph seems unlikely, given possible changes in human speed since 1888, but they said they were behind time so they may have been hurrying.

Therefore will assume they are going faster than normal as my preferred option. I will plump for 3mins as half way between 3mph and 4mph.

If one assumes Mizen returns at the same pace, that gives a total walking time of 6minutes. however allowance must be made for the time taken to tell Mizen of Nichols and his finishing knocking up. We can guesstimate anything from 1minute to 2 minutes for that in total.
That gives a range of 7-8 minutes from the time Lechmere and Paul leave the body, the point quoted in the A-Z.

You may say, they would have walked faster so lets consider the possibilities:

If Paul/Lechmere walk at 4mph and Mizen does the same we get 5 minutes 24 for the walking plus the encounter time. So a range of 6 minutes 24 seconds to 7 minutes 24 seconds.

And finally if we assume 5mph for all we get a walking time 4 minutes 20 seconds and so a range of 5minutes 20 to 6minutes 20.

That is how I calculate Mizen could not have been in Bucks row within 5 minutes of Paul and Lechmere leaving.

I have already explained that drunk,in my opinion,should be ignored.It is clear to me that Cross and Paul would not have sought the aid of a policeman if they believed Nichols to just be drunk,so the words dead or dying can be accepted,and that is the words that should have been acted upon by Mizen,immediately,before any more knocking up.My opinion.

Fair enough Harry, however can one ask what that view is based on?

The words they both said they used were "dead or drunk", if drunk did not matter why did they mention it?

Could I please ask you to point me in the direction of the use of the the word "dying".
I can find neither Lechmere or Paul saying it in regards to a conversation with PC Mizen, perhaps I have just missed it?

Lets not get into the If this or that situation.From what is reported,Mizen did or said nothing that needed Cross or Paul to stay or do anthing,not even give identification,so they were in their rights to continue on to work.His was the responsibility,not theirs.

And who is saying otherwise?

Other policemen post here so why mention Trevor?I would suggest you haven't been too carefull in following the site if you believe Trevor to be the only one.

Harry, why such a fuss?
Trevor is one Former policeman I am certainly aware of on the forum.
I tend not to check what a posters background is, unless they are making claims based on that background, so he was the first one who came to mind, being well known.
Considering that Trevor and I do not see eye to eye on many things I would consider his view on this would be unbias.

As I said,my interpretation of the 5 minute timing was that Mizen, being the last constable to arrive,could have been up to 5 minutes after Neil.Might that not suggest something?

The problem Harry is that it does not say he arrives 5 minutes after Neil does it? which is what you have claimed.

The full quote from the A-Z is:

"At approximately 3.40, Charles Cross and Robert Paul noticed her body lying in Buck’s Row, with the skirt pulled up. Within five minutes, Police Constables Neil, Thain and Mizen were on the scene,"


That is very clear. it gives no reference to when a particular officer arrives, only that all 3 were on the scene WITHIN 5 minutes of Paul and Lechmere., It cannot be accurate, it is not possible as I show above.

The text is part a summary of the night events by the authors of the A-Z; which while a wonderful reference is not infallible.

One final say.I asked for a police rule or order that would specifically state that knocking up take preference over a reported incidence of a woman lying dead or dying,on an adjoining beat.

I posted the link for you where this was discussed if you cannot be bothered to read it, so be it.

Oh! and what has been your police experience. Ever served in law enforcement?

I claim none, and precisely what does that have to do with this?

I rely for my information on others whom I believe are experts, Monty is the expert on policing, and David posted the documents from the Police and Home Office, which he and Monty were debating.

In the absence of legal opinion to the contrary, I tend to accept those views.

Do you have a background in legal or law enforcement yourself?
Are you basing your view on that?




Steve

[Elamarna]

The full quote from the A-Z is:

"At approximately 3.40, Charles Cross and Robert Paul noticed her body lying in Buck’s Row, with the skirt pulled up. Within five minutes, Police Constables Neil, Thain and Mizen were on the scene,"


That is very clear. it gives no reference to when a particular officer arrives, only that all 3 were on the scene WITHIN 5 minutes of Paul and Lechmere., It cannot be accurate, it is not possible as I show above.

Let me just qualify that statement, it is not possible unless Mizen is running or walking like an Olympic walker.

And we have no record of either being the case from Mizen, or Neil who saw him approach.


Steve

[David Orsam]

But as I w as accused of making things up,I have a right to reply

Except that you didn't. You asked for a police officer to reply for you. Which isn't going to happen.

[David Orsam]

Being as the newspapers are reporting events,theirs is a copy of what transpired in court,and word for word cannot be compared to the official transcript which I believe had not been published
.How mant times have I read on this site,that newspaper accounts cannot be trusted for accuracy.So I do not consider hearsay a wrong
description,and that is not an opinion that we should completely reject such reports either.

There was no such thing as an "official transcript" of the inquest, Harry.

And you shouldn't fall into the trap of confusing newspaper reports in general with newspaper reports of court proceedings, the latter of which actually have a special status in law.

[David Orsam]

One final say.I asked for a police rule or order that would specifically state that knocking up take preference over a reported incidence of a woman lying dead or dying,on an adjoining beat.

Why is that of any relevance? He wasn't told a woman was lying "dead or dying". The evidence is that he was told a woman was lying dead or drunk. Have you forgotten already? And the relevant rule has been given to you. A police officer could not leave his beat except in case of fire, accident or emergency. It's for you to demonstrate that a report by a member of the public of a woman lying dead or drunk in another division was an "emergency" which allowed him abandon his normal beat duties (e.g. knocking up) and leave his beat to investigate. So far only silence.

[harry]

Here we go again.
Newspaper articles are reports.They are not the original transcripts.They cannot in themselves be used as evidence.They are hearsay.

There is no such thing as an official transcript.What rubbish.I have here in front of me an official transcript of a hearing.It says so on the cover.Sure this is in Australia,but does that matter.

A woman lying dead or dying would have every relevance for a police officer.As the words believed she was dead are reported as being used,the word belief,allows for dying to be a possibility.

Tell the truth David.I didn't ask for a police officer to reply for me.I have intimated that a police officer COULD respond if one wished to do so.Stop resorting to lies.I know it wont happen.You are correct there.
Elamana,
And I owned up to my mistake,so why are you making such ado about the word drunk.I'll tell you .Because you have nothing else of importance to add.

The fact that I do not state in words, misunderstanding to be a possibility,in no way proves I do not accept it as being so.When I state the belief that Mizen lied,it is because I believe that to be the more probable.

And according to Paul?,and that's appeared on this site.

And there is nothing to prove Mizen didn't continue to knock up more than one.

We can estimate the speed of movement only if we know how fast a person or thing is moving.We do not know at what speed Neil was walking,whether he stopped at some points even,and I know from experience,one can idle along at a pace where a hundred yards can take a considerable time.My views are based on the fact I was once a beat officer.

Why such a fuss.It was you that introduced Trevor's name,not me.

If you prefer the views of an expert,here is one.
"Knocking up w as permitted only if it didn't interfere with regular duties" Posted 12-2-2014.
And if you do not believe a regular duty involved attending where a woman was reported as dead or dying,I am sorry for you.

[David Orsam]

Here we go again.
Newspaper articles are reports.They are not the original transcripts.They cannot in themselves be used as evidence.They are hearsay.

There is no such thing as an official transcript.What rubbish.I have here in front of me an official transcript of a hearing.It says so on the cover.Sure this is in Australia,but does that matter.

Please try and concentrate on the posts Harry. I didn't say there is "no such thing as an official transcript". I said "There was no such thing as an "official transcript" of the inquest". Let me be clear. There was no official transcript of the Nichols inquest nor of any of the inquests of the JTR victims. I have no idea why you consider it relevant that there are official transcripts of hearings in Australia in 2017. We are talking about inquests in England in 1888.

To refer to and disparage the newspaper reports of the proceedings in 1888 as "hearsay" is plain daft on so many levels. Those newspaper reports are sufficient for us to be able to know and discuss what was said in evidence during the Nichols inquest. There is no basis to question their legitimacy.

[David Orsam]

A woman lying dead or dying would have every relevance for a police officer.

Possibly but Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering. No-one suggested to him that she was dying.

[harry]

There w as no such thing as an official transcript of the inquest ,Harry.
That's what you wrote David.
There was,but it is not known what happened to it.I do read and digest.
It was a coroners court,the inquest of Nichols was a procedure through the court.A transcript of those proceedings would be made.

Why do I cite Australia.In 1901 on gaining independence, Australia adopted what is called The Westminster System.That included the Judicial system,and the concept of Common Law,and inquests and transcripts,and little different from England of 1888.

If I disparage newspaper reports of proceedings,then I am in good company.They are secondry to official reports,and it's been shown that they sometimes contained errors,but I do not think I have ever said,we should ignore them completely.

Not the only fact David.Mizen would not have left his beat if it was just a case of being drunk,so other posters have argued.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's an interesting story.

East London Observer, 1st September 1888—

"It seems that on Friday morning Police-constable Neale [sic], 97J, was on his beat at about half-past four, in the neighbourhood of Buck's Row. It was then just after half-past four, and, in the early light of day he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman. She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony. She was wearing a little black straw bonnet, battered almost out of recognition, and placed at the back of her head. Around her was a cloak - a threadbare garment that had once been red, but was now a dull, dirty colour. It was open in front, and the black bodice of her dress was thrown slightly open, revealing a horrible gash more than an inch in diameter, extending from one ear to the other, and completely severing the windpipe, which protruded from the deep wound.

"Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary."

Regards,

Simon