The Nature of Evidence

[caz]

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

Hi Pierre,

The fact remains that, as unreliable as Paul's claims may be, this is what PC Mizen would have read about himself if he read that article or was told about it. He'd have been on the defensive. He was only flesh and blood.

Conversely, Cross came out of the same article completely untouched. He was a 'man' who did nothing wrong in Paul's eyes, from the moment of their first communication, when he responsibly alerted Paul and asked for his assistance, to when they parted company after Mizen was told by Paul that the woman was dead but shamefully carried on knocking up.

True or not, it's the perception that would have coloured the reactions of the two individuals featured in Paul's story.

Christer twists this to make Cross's reaction one of damage limitation [what damage?] and Mizen's reaction one of honest and benign record straightening.

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

QUOTE=caz;423498

Hi Pierre,

The fact remains that, as unreliable as Paul's claims may be, this is what PC Mizen would have read about himself if he read that article or was told about it. He'd have been on the defensive. He was only flesh and blood.

Conversely, Cross came out of the same article completely untouched. He was a 'man' who did nothing wrong in Paul's eyes, from the moment of their first communication, when he responsibly alerted Paul and asked for his assistance, to when they parted company after Mizen was told by Paul that the woman was dead but shamefully carried on knocking up.

True or not, it's the perception that would have coloured the reactions of the two individuals featured in Paul's story.

Christer twists this to make Cross's reaction one of damage limitation [what damage?] and Mizen's reaction one of honest and benign record straightening.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The police was often criticized in the press.

Your hypothesis implies that:

The police, i.e. police constables or officers working with murder cases, could not work indenpendently and according to the law, but was instead seriously affected by the writings of journalists, in fact so seriously affected by the press that sworn policemen lied at murder inquests.

OK.

Pierre

[drstrange169]

Hello Steve,

If we take the Daly News article at face value, then it is Mizen rather than Xmere who is forced out by Paul's Lloyds story.

If Mizen and Neil were denying the two men story and Paul was not coming forward, no matter when Xmere went to police he would not be believed. It is only when Mizen finally admits to the investigation he saw two men that Xmere would be considered credible enough to be called as a witness to the inquest.

[drstrange169]

>>... there is really no other way of interpreting it.<<

The theory about this offered by various Lecheers hinges on the words,

"... no man leaving the spot to attract attention".

Somehow they believe Xmere and Paul were of no interest to Mizen, so he didn't bother mentioning them?!?

[Elamarna]

>>... there is really no other way of interpreting it.<<

The theory about this offered by various Lecheers hinges on the words,

"... no man leaving the spot to attract attention".

Somehow they believe Xmere and Paul were of no interest to Mizen, so he didn't bother mentioning them?!?

Of course the really interesting take on Mizen and the value of his evidence is how his timing his used, or not.
He testifies the Carmen meet him about 3.45, such of course if true dismiss Paul's account of 3.45 in Bucks Row.

Mizen the utterly reliable and truthful Police officer on every other point of his testimony is wrong on this issue.

However the pro Lechmere people do not try and argue this point, on the whole it's ignored and airbrushed out of the debate.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve,

If we take the Daly News article at face value, then it is Mizen rather than Xmere who is forced out by Paul's Lloyds story.

If Mizen and Neil were denying the two men story and Paul was not coming forward, no matter when Xmere went to police he would not be believed. It is only when Mizen finally admits to the investigation he saw two men that Xmere would be considered credible enough to be called as a witness to the inquest.

Dusty

I think that is largely correct; however I now believe that Neil's testimony on Saturday was also an issue for Mizen, the outcome of both is the account Mizen gave on the Monday.

Are you aware if there is any record or report of Mizen's account, in any way shape or form, before the article in Lloyds or even before he gives his testimony?
I have looked for such and can find none.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe Mizen wasn't the 'su-per-per troo-per-per' that he's benn made out to be?

Sorry, could resist it

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Nature of The Missing Evidence

Just a few thoughts here after watching 'The Missing Evidence' documentary which, I have to admit, I had only previously watched once. I was thinking about the approach to looking at evidence. I'm not claiming any great revelations here and I'm sure everyone has already considered these points.

The first point is about expert testimony, specifically Scobie. Obviously his credentials can't be questioned but, like a computer, an experts opinion is only as good as the information that's 'fed in.' In the documentary he's seen thumbing through a manuscript which one can only assume is Fisherman's collated research. Before continuing I have to stress that I'm in no way questioning Fisherman's honesty or integrity here. He's done extensive research and genuinely believes CL to be the likeliest candidate. That said, I would suggest that what Scobie had read was basically the case for the prosecution after which he decided that there was a prima facie case against CL. The question is: would he have arrived at the same conclusion had he a) spent, say a week or two, doing nothing else but immerse himself into the intricacies of the case or b) read the case for the defence (for eg. Steve's (Elamarna's) research?)
Or any kind of opposing viewpoint which he would have to take into consideration were he considering taking on a criminal case in the courts. I think that this point is worth remembering anytime anyone, not just Fisherman, quotes the opinion of an expert.

The second point is about the possible problems which can arise when applying 21st century methods and thinking to 19th century events. Employing modern police techniques is a worthwhile exercise but one which should be viewed with a measure of caution and reappraisal. My example here is when Andy Griffiths stated about Robert Paul that it would be 'reasonable to assume he was keeping an eye on the time,' when he entered Buck's Row. It's a minor point but an illustration of my what I mean. Andy Griffiths is thinking 21st century here. Yet we know, as we are used to trying to think like Victorians, that it would have been highly likely that a working class man like Paul wouldn't have owned a watch. And if he did it would probably have been an heirloom which divided its time between a cupboard at home and the pawnshop. Paul and men like him would have relied on church bells and clocks on buildings. This is why it's sensible not rely on exact timings. If someone said that they left home at 3.30 it could easily have been 3.35 or 3.37, especially if he was relying on a policeman to 'knock him up.' Paul may have owned a watch and he may have had it with him but it is probably more likely that he didn't. We have to constantly remind ourselves times were different. This point is also relevant went considering how important it would have been for CL and Paul to get to work on time. Today it would be no problem, a quick call to the boss and it would cease to be an issue. In 1888 it was vastly different. Bosses could sack with impugnity. No tribunals or compensation claims. And no easy options for alternative employment. And of course, the Workhouse. It's important that we don't implant 21st century thought on 19th century men.

My final point is a simple and short one. Fisherman and Griffiths walked from Doveton Street to Bucks Row in 7 minutes and 7 seconds. I've never done it myself, I don't doubt the accuracy. The point made was that CL would have gotten to Bucks Row at 3.37, 8 minutes before the arrival of Paul giving CL plenty of time to kill Nichols. Two points. As I mentioned earlier being 5 or 6 or 7 minutes out in timings is perfectly possible due to the lack of clocks/watches. How do we know that CL didn't leave at 3.37 but thought it was 3.30 as that was the time that he was 'knocked up' (if he was knocked up, off course) and the Constable was late? My final point is that Payne-Jones said that the murder would have taken 2 minutes. So if CL arrived at 3.37 and Paul arrived at 3.45 and the murder took 2 minutes what was he doing for the missing 6 minutes. It can't be suggested that he was waiting for Polly to arrive. If he'd picked her up somewhere else it's surely unlikely that he'd have taken her back onto a spot that he passed every day at that time? It's unthinkable that he killed her and then just stood around waiting for someone to arrive. Surely that extra time would have made it even more likely that he wouldn't have needed to 'brazen it out.' He'd have been long gone.

Regards
Herlock

[drstrange169]

Hello Steve,

>>Are you aware if there is any record or report of Mizen's account, in any way shape or form, before the article in Lloyds or even before he gives his testimony?<<

Never mentioned, until the inquest. Oddly, no mention the the police reports prior to the inquest and equally oddly, no mention after Neil's testimony at the inquest that he was alone and that Neil believed Mizen only arrived because he had signalled him.

By "late" Sunday night, the investigation should have been aware of the two men bringing the situation in Buck's Row to the "attention" of Mizen.

All in all, there is a mystery here and that Mystery involves Mizen.

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve,

>>Are you aware if there is any record or report of Mizen's account, in any way shape or form, before the article in Lloyds or even before he gives his testimony?<<

Never mentioned, until the inquest. Oddly, no mention the the police reports prior to the inquest and equally oddly, no mention after Neil's testimony at the inquest that he was alone and that Neil believed Mizen only arrived because he had signalled him.

By "late" Sunday night, the investigation should have been aware of the two men bringing the situation in Buck's Row to the "attention" of Mizen.

All in all, there is a mystery here and that Mystery involves Mizen.

I agree with all of that Dusty, however I no longer believe it is a mystery at all. The answer is not even that deeply hidden. It's there in the inquest testimony.


Steve

[Pcdunn]

>>It follows that just because Neil was still saying he was the finder on the Sunday evening...<<

Pedantic point, but important, Neil did not ever claim to be the finder.

He never makes any claim that he was the first, only that he was not alerted to the body by two men.

Plus, what evidence is there that he was "still saying" on Sunday evening?

How do we know he was was not asked this question on Saturday, when the story of two men finding the body and alerting him, broke?

And finally, there is the conundrum of Mizen's apparent denial of "seeing anything of interest" in that same report.

All in all, a curious report by the Daily News. And one that needs to be approached with a certain amount of caution.

I can't help wondering why they seem to know of the "two butchers" (the horse-slaughterers?), yet perhaps don't yet know of the two car-men?

So, to speculate: Mizen covered up his actions on that night until after the Lloyd's story was published, when he had to admit he'd talked to some men about a woman in Buck's Row?

Seems logical, but what if Cross had reported to the police either late Friday or on Saturday morning about his part in the case, and Abberline wanted to "make further inquiries" of his constables, specifically Mizen?

[Pcdunn]

Hello Pat,

>>Back on topic, I had a thought about all the people surrounding the crime scenes who all claimed they heard nothing while sleeping: life and work was much harder in that time and place, and perhaps people really did sleep much more soundly than many of us do in the 21st century<<

In the case of Mrs. Nichols murder, both Mrs's Green and Purkis claimed to be poor sleepers, in Pukis's case actually awake most of the night.

Hello, Dusty,

Thanks for the reply. I suppose it may have been like today, where some people sleep well, and others do not. I'm sure some folks had chronic aches and pains that may have kept them awake, or allowed them to sleep fitfully, with periods of wakefulness.

[Fisherman]

So I´m back, and nothing much has changed. I can read about how I am "twisting" the evidence (thanks for that, Caz), I can take part of how it is claimed that "leaving the spot to attract attention" is suddenly the same as being of interest ( a useful little leap of meanings there, Dusty!), and I can notice how a poster who has claimed on my behalf that I think that I can quantify how often doctors are correct or not is actually regarded as a truthful and reliable person (that´s where you fell from grace, Steve - a shortish fall, but nevertheless).

If it has been decided/discovered/"found" that the Lechmere theory is wrong, I´d be grateful to have the main points in the evidence chain leading up to these revelations disclosed to me in a short, comprehensible list. Otherwise, I will work from the presumption that nothing new has been added and all there is in the way of criticism is the same old, same old...

Anybody? Was there anything at all new mentioned while I was away?

[Fisherman]

Here´s a question for those who have delved into the maps and come up with the conclusion that John Neil came into Bucks Row by way of Queen Anne Street. This has been put on the agenda by means of a snippet from the Echo, stating "the third constable (who would be Neil, my remark) would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's row, Thomas street, Queen Anne street, and Buck's row, to Brady street, and all the interior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage, &c.?
Let´s begin by realizing that Neil covered not only the six streets named in the article, but actually about ten streets. So we will have a hard time establishing exactly how his beat looked - if the Echo was on the money.

What we DO have is the official Casebook version: "He had walked from Thomas Street into Buck's Row and was heading eastwards towards Brady Street", specifying that it was not from Queen Anne Street Neil came into Queen Anne Street, but instead from Thomas Street.

This idea is almost certainly based on press evidence, like the one presented in the Evening News: "The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning..."
No mentioning of Queen Anne Street there!

Now, Thomas Street was a long one and stretched both in a southernly direction from Bucks Row AND in a northernly ditto, where it turned ninety degrees left after a hundred yards or so, retaining the name Thomas Street after the turn. It then ended where it joined up with Bakers Row.

It is therefore not illogical to suggest, as Steve does (I believe?), that Neil may have walked up Baker´s Row from the south, to the junction with Thomas Street, where he would have taken a right turn into the latter street, then that ninety-degree turn that left him on the southernheaded part of Thomas Street until he came into Bucks Row, whereafter he took a left up Queen Anne Street, using it as a cul-de-sac, returning down to Bucks Row again afterwards.

No matter how Neil covered Queen Anne Street, it still remains that the papers have him entering Bucks Row from Thomas Street, though. So the proposition that he came from Queen Anne Street is simply wrong, as far as I can tell.

It applies that there were beats that were walked in a fashion where some streets were not walked on every round. They could be walked every other round. It all hinged on how important it was thought to be that the different streets were all covered in at least some degree. This could be what applies here. The indication is clear - Neil came from Thomas Street.

What I think points a finger to the real version of events is how all the papers have the same wording about how Neil found Nichols - he "came upon her" as he walked down Bucks Row. To me, this says that she was lying on the pavement Neil was using. There is no mentioning about him crossing the street to reach her, as far as I can remember, instead the papers say he came upon the body as he walked.

If he had come from Queen Anne Street, he would have entered the narrow part of Bucks Row on the northern pavement, not the southern where Nichols lay.
If he came from Thomas Street, he may well have come up from the south, if he did not walk Bakers Row every time - if he walked clockwise, always using Bakers Row to walk up from Whitechapel Road, he would leave the southern stretch of Thomas Street unwalked - and if this was so, it would be logical for him to enter the narrow Bucks Row stretch on the southern pavement. He may of course also have walked Bakers Row, turning into Bucks Row, and doubling down the southern part of Thomas Street every other round, doing the same up Queen Anne Street on the remaining rounds. We cannot possibly know.

Of course, this is all speculation, but I hasten to add that the same applies to Steves suggestion - we cannot be sure how the beat was walked in every detail. But it is established that the suggested route as per the papers was one where Neil entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street and not Queen Anne Street.

It´s all good and well to read a passage like the one from the Echo and try to establish matters from it. But one should not leave out the specific evidence relating to the issue in making that effort.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

The police was often criticized in the press.

Your hypothesis implies that:

The police, i.e. police constables or officers working with murder cases, could not work indenpendently and according to the law, but was instead seriously affected by the writings of journalists, in fact so seriously affected by the press that sworn policemen lied at murder inquests.

OK.

Pierre

Hypothesis is putting it a bit strong, Pierre. I don't know if Mizen lied or not. Maybe he was so used to seeing the police criticised in the papers that he took Paul's scathing comments on the chin, thinking little of them. My focus is more on Cross's supposed reaction to reading what Paul had to say about him. And it makes no sense that Cross came forward as a direct result to limit some perceived damage. If he killed Nichols, he also knew when leaving PC Mizen that his role as finder was bound to come out one way or another, if not via Paul, then via Mizen. He could hardly have expected that neither of them would mention him at all. One wonders, however, if Mizen would have reported the encounter had Paul and Cross not done so.

Love,

Caz
X