The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

You might as well add that at one time he thought she was a tarpaulin!

There is nothing contradictory with the rest of his evidence with him saying he had no idea there were any serious injuries. Neither he nor Paul could see any serious injuries in the dark.

Yes, in the confusing situation in which he found himself the thought crossed his mind that Nichols had been outraged and gone off in a swoon. So what? A person could have had twenty different thoughts in that situation, even contradictory ones.

Which is exactly my point, David. If he was in such a confused state of mind how on earth could be be certain as to what he may or may not have said to PC Mizen?

[John G]

One interesting thing about what Lechmere said is how it mirrors what Paul said in his Lloyds Weekly interview. And that may have helped with the impression you are getting.

Hi Christer,

Could I trouble you for the Lloyds Weekly reference? Do you think the similarities might suggest that Paul and Cross discussed the case prior to the inquest?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Could I trouble you for the Lloyds Weekly reference? Do you think the similarities might suggest that Paul and Cross discussed the case prior to the inquest?

Lloyds Weekly carried the interview on the 2:nd, you have the same material in the Evening News on the 3:rd, and it goes like this:

"Robert Paul, a carman, has made the following remarkable statement: He says: It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one 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. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the test had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen here, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

I don´t think the twio discussed the case prior to the inquest, but I that the similarities (the victim having "been outraged and died in the struggle" or "been outraged and gone off in a swoon", and "as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot" and how Lechmere said that Paul veered to the side as if he was afraid to be knocked down, etcetera) point to how Lechmere was flushed out by reading the interview.

[David Orsam]

But, as I've noted before, surely the real difficulty is that Cross' evidence is all over the place in respect of what he thought had happened to Nichols. Thus, he informs the inquest that he variously believed the victim to be "dead", "drunk", "outraged", "gone off in a swoon", and, moreover, that he had no idea that "there were any serious injuries."

Given these somewhat contradictory accounts, can we have any confidence about what he might have told PC Mizen?

So it follows that because he was initially confused as to whether it was a woman or a tarpaulin he can't remember what he said to Mizen?

I fail to see any connection between him being puzzled as to what had happened to the woman lying on the ground in the dark and him not later being able to recall what he said to PC Mizen.

[David Orsam]

And if Lechmere was the killer, it makes perfect sense...

And there's the problem with your entire post. Equally, if Constables Mizen, Neil, Thain and Cross, Paul and others were all involved in a satanic ritual to murder Mary Ann Nichols that night then it makes perfect sense that absolutely nothing they have said in evidence was true.

But I cannot and will not qualify the evidence of every witness in this case on the basis that they might have been Jack the Ripper. That way madness lies Fisherman.

I do repeat, and insist, that the evidence in this case is that Mizen was told that a woman was lying dead or drunk in Bucks Row and none of your waffle changes this simple fact, however much you dislike it.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: And there's the problem with your entire post.

There is no problem with my post - it takes care of the ommision in YOUR post.

Equally, if Constables Mizen, Neil, Thain and Cross, Paul and others were all involved in a satanic ritual to murder Mary Ann Nichols that night then it makes perfect sense that absolutely nothing they have said in evidence was true.

Yes. So it´s up to anybody who thinks that happened to push that theory. They won´t be many.

But I cannot and will not qualify the evidence of every witness in this case on the basis that they might have been Jack the Ripper. That way madness lies Fisherman.

No, it does not. Madness lies in dubbing a chosen part of the evidence that may be wrong fact.

I do repeat, and insist, that the evidence in this case is that Mizen was told that a woman was lying dead or drunk in Bucks Row and none of your waffle changes this simple fact, however much you dislike it.

Repeat away, and insist all you wish. It changes nothing. We are still left with me speaking for looking at ALL the evidence as ALL the witnesses described it, and you sorting away half of it. It has nothing to do with any waffling, but instead with a misrepresentation on your behalf.

[Elamarna]

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.

That my dear harry is not how academic history works, the reports of the inquests are deemed to be "primary sources", they are direct reporting , at the time of the event with no opinion added.

In the circumstances of the original inquest reports no longer being available not only are they a primary source they are THE primary source.

to call them hearsay displays a of knowledge and a complete isunderstanding of history.

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.

David is correct, the original have not survived. End of.

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.

No the words used are "lying". "drunk or dead", to suggest "dying" is invention, no more no less.

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 defence of those who cannot give an answer, don’t address the issues raised, just attack and hope no one notices the inability to answer the points.

The "such ado" is because 3 words were used: lying, drunk or dead. However having failed to make the case one was not used you chose to ignore it and introduce the word "dying" which is never used or even suggested.

I have far more to add on the issue over the next few days, based on facts and science, not based on personal opinions and gut feelings.

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.

Interesting reply, especially when one reads you reply in post 1157:

"I have never considered it a case of misunderstanding on Mizen's part ,simply because I believe he lied."

That is clear, you do not even look at the possibility as you have predetermined he lied.

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

What does that mean Harry? Does it mean you ignore all he said?

Or do you pick what you like? Sorry I am confused.

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

So you have nothing to back you view, just personal opinion of Mizen.
One does not need to prove he did only one. Given that he claimed he did one more, and Paul and Lechmere do not disagree with this, the onus is on your to prove he did more.

Therefore any view that he may have, is contrary to the evidence and based on bias, no more no less.

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.

We know that Police were meant to walk at 3 miles per hour at night, that is an established historical fact.

We know that beat Sergeant's were also on patrol checking on this, again an established historical fact.


We can therefore suggest the average speed he was meant to walk at, and can make estimates for time taken to cover set distances, and yes they are only estimates, but are based on science and history.

However we do not need to know the exact speed, we can give a range to allow for any variation.

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

It is you making the fuss, I mentioned one ex officer and wished he would give his view, end of.
It is you who seemed upset and as continued to be.

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.

Yes from Monty, but it predates the discussion between David and Monty, which it seems you have not read, which followed David posting the relevant documents.

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

Why may I ask do you chose that view, rather than one after the discussion highlighted?

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.

It was not judged an emergency in 1888, and no matter how often you pretend the word dying was used, it was not, and does not change the situation.

Steve

[David Orsam]

Look Fisherman, now that you appear to be talking to me again, just please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following two statements:

1. There is evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was "dead or drunk" in Bucks Row.

2. There is no evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was dying in Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

Look Fisherman, now that you appear to be talking to me again, just please tell me whether you agree or disagree with the following two statements:

1. There is evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was "dead or drunk" in Bucks Row.

2. There is no evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was dying in Bucks Row.

Okay, I will answer your questions, and pose one for you.

1. Yes, there is evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row.

2. No, there is no direct evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was dying in Bucks Row.

Here is my question:

Is there evidence that Mizen was told that there was a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, without any mentioning of death or drunkenness?

Putting it otherwise, could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?

[David Orsam]

Here is my question:

Is there evidence that Mizen was told that there was a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, without any mentioning of death or drunkenness?

Putting it otherwise, could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?

Right dealing first with your silly questions. I say "silly" because the first one is tortuously worded and you actually have to rephrase it to create a second one which is slightly different.

"Is there evidence that Mizen was told that there was a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, without any mentioning of death or drunkenness?" Easy to answer. No. Nothing was said to Mizen about a woman lying on her back.

"Putting it otherwise, could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?" This is asking me for speculation. The established fact is that it is in evidence that Mizen was told the woman was lying dead or drunk. It's impossible to say that any individual's recollection of what was said at any time in history is an "established fact". I've never claimed that anything in evidence is an established fact so you've been chasing shadows. What I've said is that based on the evidence the full picture here is that Mizen was told that a woman was lying dead or drunk. There is no evidence directly contradicting that this was said. It is evidence which makes sense. It is perfectly reasonable for a rational person to conclude that Mizen was told this.

[David Orsam]

1. Yes, there is evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row.

2. No, there is no direct evidence that Mizen was told that a woman was dying in Bucks Row.

THANK YOU!

This was ALL I was trying to convey to Harry. There was really no need for your intervention Fisherman. Perhaps you were bored or something, I don't know.

p.s. I note that you have slipped in the phrase "direct evidence" into the second answer which was not in my question. I have no idea why you have done this. There is no evidence of any kind that Mizen was told a woman was dying in Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Right dealing first with your silly questions. I say "silly" because the first one is tortuously worded and you actually have to rephrase it to create a second one which is slightly different.

I would say that YOUR questions are childish, David. Everybody knows what Lechmere said.
Sadly for you, everybody knows what Mizen said too.

"Is there evidence that Mizen was told that there was a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, without any mentioning of death or drunkenness?" Easy to answer. No. Nothing was said to Mizen about a woman lying on her back.

No? This is Lechmere´s testimony: "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." I thought you liked the carmans testimony, David, since you choose it over Mizens.

"Putting it otherwise, could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?" This is asking me for speculation.

It is asking you whether the evidence allows for it or not, quite simply. Does it, David? No speculation needed at all.

The established fact is that it is in evidence that Mizen was told the woman was lying dead or drunk.

It is equally established that Mizen said nothing about being told this. It is equally established that he said that he was told that a woman was lying in the street in Bucks Row.

It's impossible to say that any individual's recollection of what was said at any time in history is an "established fact".

Fine. So let´s not do it, then. Let´s not claim that Mizen WAS told about death or drunkenness, if it is not an estanlished fact.

I've never claimed that anything in evidence is an established fact so you've been chasing shadows.

Post 1213, by your hand:
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.

Did I just read the word "fact", David? No? Who´s waffling now?

What I've said is that based on the evidence the full picture here is that Mizen was told that a woman was lying dead or drunk.

No, that is not the full picture. The full picture is that Mizen was EITHER told that she was dead or drunk, or he was NOT, as per Mizens evidence.

There is no evidence directly contradicting that this was said.

There is no flat out denial on Mizens behalf of it, no. Nor does there have to be, since he was not asked if he was told this. He gave his own version, and it involved neither term.

It is evidence which makes sense.

Oh, so if the evidence makes sense to you, it becomes a fact? Sorry, but that is not going to happen. To me, it makes little sense that a PC told that there is a dead or drunk woman in an adjacent street should meet this information with a lacklustre "Alright" and with proceeding with a knocking up errand.
However, if he was only told that the woman was on her back in the street, and that a fellow PC had the errand in hand, the reaction makes a lot more sense.
Therefore, there will be no dribbling away of half of the evidence on your behalf. You may take that as a promise.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: THANK YOU!

This was ALL I was trying to convey to Harry. There was really no need for your intervention Fisherman. Perhaps you were bored or something, I don't know.

I wasn´t bored then, but I am now - by your efforts to sweep the possible implications of Mizens evidence under the carpet.

p.s. I note that you have slipped in the phrase "direct evidence" into the second answer which was not in my question. I have no idea why you have done this. There is no evidence of any kind that Mizen was told a woman was dying in Bucks Row.

Of course you have no idea why I did it, David. Let me enlighten you: Because it is implicitly conveyed by anybody speaking of a dead OR drunk woman that she MAY be dying. It need not be stated outright. So Mizen was NOT told that the woman was dying, but it would always be a clear possibility. It makes sense, as a poster out here put it. You had your answer with a clarification, so you should be grateful.

I am less grateful that you did not have the guts to do the same for me, by simply saying "Yes, it is true that Mizens version did not say anything at all about any death or drunkeness". Instead you started babbling about other matters and called my question silly.

That goes to show what you are about, demanding clear answers from fellow posters but slithering away when you are asked for the same.

Goodnight.

[David Orsam]

I am less grateful that you did not have the guts to do the same for me, by simply saying "Yes, it is true that Mizens version did not say anything at all about any death or drunkeness". Instead you started babbling about other matters and called my question silly.

I asked you whether you agreed or disagreed with two simple statements Fisherman. Look at what you asked me:

"could the picture Mizen paints be a full and true one, meaning that there was never any mentioning of death or drunkenness, or is it an established fact that these matters were mentioned?"

How could I answer "yes" or "no" to a question in two parts?

[David Orsam]

Your first question was very poorly phrased and didn't really make sense:

"Is there evidence that Mizen was told that there was a woman lying on her back in Bucks Row, without any mentioning of death or drunkenness?"

Is there evidence that Mizen was told a woman was lying on her back without any mentioning of death or drunkenness?

Well no, because the evidence that she was lying on her back, as you have informed me, was given my Cross who also DID mention death or drunkenness.

So the answer is again "no". There was no such evidence.