The Nature of Evidence

[Pierre]

That was the previous position.
My view has changed, while preparing part two of the project, that is the witness statements, there is a subtle discrepancy in the sources which is easily missed.

Steve

That sounds interesting, Steve. I think there will be very fruitful discussions here about your findings, about the sources and your interpretation.

You take the forum to a higher level with your more scientific historical approach to the past and to history.

This means there is more room for discussions about validity and reliability. I really appreciate that.

Pierre

[Varqm]

Mizen did not take Lechmeres name,home/work address,full statement -which was the reason Lechmere did not went back to the police as apparently his testimony was not needed, but perhaps by saying he (Mizen) was wanted by a policeman per witness,he excused himself for not taking info because another policeman must have already took it .

But it does not matter,it was up to the police to get to the bottom of it.
Witnessess were treated by the police in ways:

Henry Smith on Lawende who was a helpful witness "I think the German spoke the truth, because I could not "lead" him in any way" ..."You will easily recognize him, then," I said. "Oh no!" he replied ; "I only had a short look at him"

Millers court residents were not allowed to leave until around 5:00 pm

Barnett,a 4 hour interview/interrogation.


This was murder/possible murder not backyard stuff.

[Elamarna]

So then you have perhaps chosen to hypothesize that Mizen thought Cross said Mizen was wanted by a PC in Buck´s Row since he saw Neil there.

We will see what you think.

Cheers, Pierre

That was the previous position.
My view has changed, while preparing part two of the project, that is the witness statements, there is a subtle discrepancy in the sources which is easily missed.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;423348]

But there is no source where Paul is asked about that issue, is there?

So lack of sources there.

Pierre

He does not mention it at all you are correct,
However the rest of his narrative agrees with Lechmere's testimony on the exchange.

If we decide to ignore him we are left with Lechmere v Mizen, which is not an issue for me.
I believe my new take suggests why Mizen would lie about the issue.
You and everyone else can judge on my take later in the year when I post it .

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;423346]

My view on the so called scam is not dependent on Paul other than he does not mention another policeman requesting Mizen. In this he appears to support Lechmere.

But there is no source where Paul is asked about that issue, is there?

So lack of sources there.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Let me be even more clear.

My view on the so called scam is not dependent on Paul other than he does not mention another policeman requesting Mizen. In this he appears to support Lechmere.

Has you know I previously agreed with the view put forward by David, that is that there was a misunderstanding and Mizen believed he had been told he was wanted by another officer which was not the case.

The sources which have lead me to my new position do not involve either of the carmen.

Steve

So then you have perhaps chosen to hypothesize that Mizen thought Cross said Mizen was wanted by a PC in Buck´s Row since he saw Neil there.

We will see what you think.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I see.

Pierre

Let me be even more clear.
My view on the so called scam is not dependent on Paul other than he does not mention another policeman requesting Mizen. In this he appears to support Lechmere.

Has you know I previously agreed with the view put forward by David, that is that there was a misunderstanding and Mizen believed he had been told he was wanted by another officer which was not the case.

The sources which have lead me to my new position do not involve either of the carmen.

Steve

[Pierre]

I agree. I made such clear in my reply to your earlier post I think.

I only accept Paul in relation to the Police if supported by a statement of Lechmere or indeed Mizen himself.

Over the knocking up issue Mizen agrees he did one more, that is as far as i go.
While I do use Paul in my take on the scam, that is only to support Lechmere.
Paul is however not a major player in my take.

Steve

I see.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

in an earlier post I analyzed the statements of Robert Paul in the article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday 02 September 1888.

The source has a tendency. Paul was systematically making strong remarks which were used for criticizing the police as an institution.

Mizen is used in the article as a representative for that institution.

First there are statements emphasizing the criminal character of the area:

”The dangerous character of the locality”

”....being on guard, for there are many terrible gangs about.”

”There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”.

Paul is making strong remarks about the area where the police work.

”She was dead and the hands cold”.

”I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle”

The statements are then used for criticizing the police:

”He (the policeman) continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

This is Mizen as representative for the police force.

"The woman was so cold 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 beat had been down there for a long time."

This is any policeman as representative for the police force.

The tendency of is clear. Paul is criticizing the police force.

The police is the object of ”A great shame”.

"No policeman on the beat had been down there".

"Had" been. Paul could not know that, but has a motive for saying that. The motive is the reason for the tendency.

We do not know his motive. It may be that he had some trouble with the police. It may be that he did not at all like his route through the area. It may be something else. Anything actually.

So there is a tendency, which dominates the whole narrative in the article.

Therefore, this source is not a reliable source.

Therefore one can not know anything about "he", i.e. PC Mizen, or anything about "no policeman had been..." using this article.

This must be taken into serious consideration when interpretations about the testimony of Mizen, using this source, are constructed.

Pierre

I agree. I made such clear in my reply to your earlier post I think.

I only accept Paul in relation to the Police if supported by a statement of Lechmere or indeed Mizen himself.

Over the knocking up issue Mizen agrees he did one more, that is as far as i go.
While I do use Paul in my take on the scam, that is only to support Lechmere.
Paul is however not a major player in my take.

Steve

[Pierre]

I can see we will agree on much on this issue Patrick.

If you are referring to PC Thain, I have switched several times over recent months. However having been working my way through the seeming endless press reports I have now I think reached a decision but will wait on the thoughts of others after I post part two before signing off on it.

Steve

Hi Steve,

in an earlier post I analyzed the statements of Robert Paul in the article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, Sunday 02 September 1888.

The source has a tendency. Paul was systematically making strong remarks which were used for criticizing the police as an institution.

Mizen is used in the article as a representative for that institution.

First there are statements emphasizing the criminal character of the area:

”The dangerous character of the locality”

”....being on guard, for there are many terrible gangs about.”

”There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”.

Paul is making strong remarks about the area where the police work.

”She was dead and the hands cold”.

”I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle”

The statements are then used for criticizing the police:

”He (the policeman) continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

This is Mizen as representative for the police force.

"The woman was so cold 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 beat had been down there for a long time."

This is any policeman as representative for the police force.

The tendency of is clear. Paul is criticizing the police force.

The police is the object of ”A great shame”.

"No policeman on the beat had been down there".

"Had" been. Paul could not know that, but has a motive for saying that. The motive is the reason for the tendency.

We do not know his motive. It may be that he had some trouble with the police. It may be that he did not at all like his route through the area. It may be something else. Anything actually.

So there is a tendency, which dominates the whole narrative in the article.

Therefore, this source is not a reliable source.

Therefore one can not know anything about "he", i.e. PC Mizen, or anything about "no policeman had been..." using this article.

This must be taken into serious consideration when interpretations about the testimony of Mizen, using this source, are constructed.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hey, Steve. I don't disagree that Mizen using the pretense of the presence of an officer in Buck's Row to excuse his response (as described by Paul in Lloyd's) makes - on its face - little sense. That is to say, it's not something one might come up with off the top of one's head. But, when compared - side by side, so to speak - with what Christer asks us to believe with respect to Cross' actions in Buck's Row (approaching Paul, asking him to come see, going off in search of a PC) and in the "Mizen Scam" in Baker's Row, it seems infinitely more plausible.

First, we are not required to believe that Mizen arrived at the idea "off the top of his head". We need only consider the possibility that he may have read Paul's statement in Lloyd's on Sunday the 2nd, and fashioned his narrative by the time he testified at the inquest on Monday the 3rd.

Conversely, we must believe it plausible that Cross saw his unconventional path to freedom clearly and instantly, as it unfolded, perfectly orchestrating it in real-time by: discerning it better to wait for Paul to reach him rather than simply walk away into the darkness; not allowing Paul to avoid him as he wished to, but tapping his shoulder and calling his attention to Nichols lying on the ground; agreeing to continue on with Paul rather than go off alone in a different direction; within in minutes (or on the fly) conceiving of the "scam" and springing it on Mizen, knowing that by telling him he was "wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row" that Mizen would consider him "cleared", thus he wouldn't be subjected to the scrutiny of Mizen's lamp, he wouldn't forced to return to Buck's Row, thus having his lie exposed, he wouldn't be asked his name, he would not be searched, thus the murder weapon - still on his person - would not found, and he'd be allowed to continue on his way to work free, unsuspected (only to appear voluntarily at the inquest on Monday) because of Paul's "remarkable statement" (?).

So, now we must look at what Paul said in Lloyd's. We must ask who Paul is critical of? Cross or Mizen? Who's actions were called a "great shame"? Who's actions required defending to his superiors? To the public?

Finally, we must ask ourselves this: Do we - in order to subscribe to all this view Mizen as a paragon of honesty because he's a serving PC, thus he'd never take the risk of telling falsehoods at the inquest? Even in light of the fact that we have very good reason to believe that another PC did just that in his testimony in the Nichols' inquest?

I can see we will agree on much on this issue Patrick.

If you are referring to PC Thain, I have switched several times over recent months. However having been working my way through the seeming endless press reports I have now I think reached a decision but will wait on the thoughts of others after I post part two before signing off on it.


Steve

[Harry D]

The man with a bag full of empty cigarette boxes! Unimportant but I wonder what he was doing with them?

Regards
Herlock

Well, he wasn't going to bring his offal bag to the cop-shop, was he?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Murderer! He must have given all those lethal cigarettes to his victims, who choked to death.

And Goldstein must have been another alias. He was too smart to use Cross a second time.

Love,

Caz
X

At last! Someone's on the right track!

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Transporting uteri?

Mouse uteri?

Regards
Herlock

[Patrick S]

Patrick

Been rereading some posts you did on the Mizen scam end of last year.

Agree with much of your proposal. The main rebuttal/ counter argument was from David and I can see his reasoning and at the time agreed with him.
However I believe we can now make a case, rather than just a largely unsupported suggestion, that he showed no urgency at all following his meeting with the Carmen. This comes from anyalysising the sources of several individuals.

However one stumbling block as seen by David was why use the call by another officer to excuse a slow response from Mizen, such made little sense.
That however was not the major issue he was attempting to cover in my view. And it was covered almost completely.


Looking forward to talking to you about it in a week or so.



Steve

Hey, Steve. I don't disagree that Mizen using the pretense of the presence of an officer in Buck's Row to excuse his response (as described by Paul in Lloyd's) makes - on its face - little sense. That is to say, it's not something one might come up with off the top of one's head. But, when compared - side by side, so to speak - with what Christer asks us to believe with respect to Cross' actions in Buck's Row (approaching Paul, asking him to come see, going off in search of a PC) and in the "Mizen Scam" in Baker's Row, it seems infinitely more plausible.

First, we are not required to believe that Mizen arrived at the idea "off the top of his head". We need only consider the possibility that he may have read Paul's statement in Lloyd's on Sunday the 2nd, and fashioned his narrative by the time he testified at the inquest on Monday the 3rd.

Conversely, we must believe it plausible that Cross saw his unconventional path to freedom clearly and instantly, as it unfolded, perfectly orchestrating it in real-time by: discerning it better to wait for Paul to reach him rather than simply walk away into the darkness; not allowing Paul to avoid him as he wished to, but tapping his shoulder and calling his attention to Nichols lying on the ground; agreeing to continue on with Paul rather than go off alone in a different direction; within in minutes (or on the fly) conceiving of the "scam" and springing it on Mizen, knowing that by telling him he was "wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row" that Mizen would consider him "cleared", thus he wouldn't be subjected to the scrutiny of Mizen's lamp, he wouldn't forced to return to Buck's Row, thus having his lie exposed, he wouldn't be asked his name, he would not be searched, thus the murder weapon - still on his person - would not found, and he'd be allowed to continue on his way to work free, unsuspected (only to appear voluntarily at the inquest on Monday) because of Paul's "remarkable statement" (?).

So, now we must look at what Paul said in Lloyd's. We must ask who Paul is critical of? Cross or Mizen? Who's actions were called a "great shame"? Who's actions required defending to his superiors? To the public?

Finally, we must ask ourselves this: Do we - in order to subscribe to all this view Mizen as a paragon of honesty because he's a serving PC, thus he'd never take the risk of telling falsehoods at the inquest? Even in light of the fact that we have very good reason to believe that another PC did just that in his testimony in the Nichols' inquest?