Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[caz]

Hi Fishy,

Nope. Two carmen alert PC Mizen to a woman that has been found lying in Buck´s Row. I am listening to Mizen on this, and he says nothing about having been told that the errand was a severe one…

…he did NOT know that she was possibly dead, since nobody told him that. He complaints at the inquest that the carman said nothing about a murder or suicide, and this is because he is consternated - if the carman was truthful and a PC colleague of his WAS in place in Buck´s Row, then the carman would realistically have been told what was afoot - and still, he only says that Mizen is wanted in Buck´s Row, where a woman was lying.

But before that night was even over, Mizen knew that the woman was not merely drunk, but horribly murdered, and not long before the two carmen must have seen her lying there. So what possibly reason could he have had for not reporting the whole story as soon as possible, if the truth was so innocent, ie that he had been led to believe this was just another drunken unfortunate, already being dealt with by a police officer? But then how many coppers does that take? And if Mizen’s answer would be two, how many carmen does it take to fetch the second copper? Something’s not adding up, and this was Mizen’s account, which you argue he only reluctantly gave when he could no longer pretend his encounter with the two witnesses from Buck’s Row had never happened.

You see, Caz, Lechmere has no interest at all of telling Mizen the severity of the situation, since that could make the good PC crave that Lechmere follows him back to the spot. Instead he paints a picture that tells Mizen that there is a woman in Buck´s Row who is so inebriated that she can´t stand on her own two feet - a standard problem that will not cause Mizen to think twice about letting the carmen pass, checked out as they must have been by that trustworthy colleague of his.

But don’t you see, Fishy? That’s precisely the problem here and it’s all in the timing. Mizen would have said as much straight away if it were true. What more perfect excuse could he have had for not hot-footing it to the scene or taking any witness details? A mere drunk with a policeman already in attendance, who had asked two passing carmen to fetch assistance? Why would he or his ‘trustworthy colleague’ have felt the need to ‘check them out’ under those circumstances?

Why does Mizen only give this perfectly reasonable (or conveniently arse-covering) account of his actions when he can no longer pretend to have no knowledge of anyone coming from Buck’s Row? What would he have had to fear from describing his encounter with the carmen the moment he learned the woman’s real fate, if his version of it was the plain unvarnished truth? According to his own belated account, he had done very little wrong and could hardly have been blamed. So why was it so belated and why did he deny any of it initially, unless the truth could have got him into much more serious trouble?

Mizen would probably have realized that he had made a fool of himself by not halting the carmen or at least taking their names down, and he would have hoped (in vain) not to be revealed for what he did. It was an understandable mistake…

Exactly so, an ‘understandable mistake’ if he was only informed that the woman was drunk and a policeman had sent the men to fetch assistance for her. Certainly not worth risking his career and his livelihood by denying anything of the sort had happened, only to have to admit it later, when the men talked and it was inevitable that he would be identified as the officer they had approached. He could hardly have gone on denying everything, with not one but two witnesses describing much the same event. But he could limit the personal damage significantly with the version he eventually came up with.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious]

Hi Fishy,



But before that night was even over, Mizen knew that the woman was not merely drunk, but horribly murdered, and not long before the two carmen must have seen her lying there. So what possibly reason could he have had for not reporting the whole story as soon as possible, if the truth was so innocent, ie that he had been led to believe this was just another drunken unfortunate, already being dealt with by a police officer? But then how many coppers does that take? And if Mizen’s answer would be two, how many carmen does it take to fetch the second copper? Something’s not adding up, and this was Mizen’s account, which you argue he only reluctantly gave when he could no longer pretend his encounter with the two witnesses from Buck’s Row had never happened.



But don’t you see, Fishy? That’s precisely the problem here and it’s all in the timing. Mizen would have said as much straight away if it were true. What more perfect excuse could he have had for not hot-footing it to the scene or taking any witness details? A mere drunk with a policeman already in attendance, who had asked two passing carmen to fetch assistance? Why would he or his ‘trustworthy colleague’ have felt the need to ‘check them out’ under those circumstances?

Why does Mizen only give this perfectly reasonable (or conveniently arse-covering) account of his actions when he can no longer pretend to have no knowledge of anyone coming from Buck’s Row? What would he have had to fear from describing his encounter with the carmen the moment he learned the woman’s real fate, if his version of it was the plain unvarnished truth? According to his own belated account, he had done very little wrong and could hardly have been blamed. So why was it so belated and why did he deny any of it initially, unless the truth could have got him into much more serious trouble?



Exactly so, an ‘understandable mistake’ if he was only informed that the woman was drunk and a policeman had sent the men to fetch assistance for her. Certainly not worth risking his career and his livelihood by denying anything of the sort had happened, only to have to admit it later, when the men talked and it was inevitable that he would be identified as the officer they had approached. He could hardly have gone on denying everything, with not one but two witnesses describing much the same event. But he could limit the personal damage significantly with the version he eventually came up with.

Love,

Caz
X

I agree, Caz. If a jury were listening to both stories, I suspect they would believe Lechmere and Paul over Mizen who appears to be trying desperately to cover his own behind.

The police really had a PR problem with this case. They have Neil taking 30 minutes to cover a 12-minute beat, and Mizen continuing to knock up and not hurrying to assist a fallen woman (pun intended).

curious

[Lechmere]

Curious Neil was not at fault for taking 30 minutes to cover his beat - all beats could be walked quicker if the officer merely had to walk around and not stop along the way, looking in alleys, checking doors, talking to night watchmen etc.
There were mistakes but that wasnt one of them - not questioning nearly all the residents in bucks row was more serious.

On the mizen subject - it is clear that as late as Sunday evening the fact that he had encounter two People who had seen polly's body was not known to Neil and helson - that is the inescapable conclusion that can be drawn from their press interviews on Sunday evening - backed up by what Mizen said in court.
It seems to me to be a bit futile suggesting mizen was a silly bit for keeping quiet and so therefore he couldn't have.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Hi Fishy"

Hi Cazzie!

"But before that night was even over, Mizen knew that the woman was not merely drunk, but horribly murdered, and not long before the two carmen must have seen her lying there."

Really? OK, just kiddin´- this is true.

"So what possibly reason could he have had for not reporting the whole story as soon as possible, if the truth was so innocent, ie that he had been led to believe this was just another drunken unfortunate, already being dealt with by a police officer?"

Yes, what he had been told seemed innocent enough, but just as you wisely point out, Mizen knew, five minutes after he had let the carmen by, that the police had a severe case of murder on their hands. But that would not have him running to his superiors, yelling "I let two guys pass, minutes after she died!" And why?

Think, Caz, please! Why did he not spread the word? There will be two, possibly three answers to that enigma. And they are divided in time, even! But let´s take it from the beginning!

When Mizen arrived at the murder spot, Caz, what was his reason for going to Buck´s Row? Correct - two carmen had told him that he was wanted there by ANOTHER policeman.

And what does he see as he arrives at Brown´s? Correct again - the PC "Cross" had spoken of - or so he must have thought.
So, Caz, is there any need at all for Mizen to tell the police that two carmen had alerted him to the spot? Nope, for Neil would take care of that - or so Mizen must have believed.
Of course, Neil never met the carmen - but Mizen was not privy to that information, was he?

So, Caz, he speaks to Neil, who tells him to fetch an ambulance, and he scuttles off to the nearest police station to oblige. He then returns to the scene, delivers the ambulance, and that´s it - mission accomplished.

Now, we have it from the papers of the 3:rd that Thain and Mizen were asked whether they had seen any man who left Buck´s Row to draw attention to himself, and that both answered in the negative. It stands to reason that the question would have been put to them at an early stage, but HOW early? Friday, Saturday...? We don´t know - we only know that the Monday papers report this.

The question as such is interesting since it speaks of men "drawing attention to themselves" - maybe that eradicates the carmen? I don´t know. Sure enough, Mizen will not have suspected them from the outset, two workers who could account for themselves as being en route to their jobs, two men he believed were working comrades, travelling in company. They would not have "drawn atrtewntion to themselves" in the way Mizens superiors asked for.
But of course, he should have mentioned them anyway when asked - whenever THAT was.
At that stage, he may - MAY - have decided that it was not a wise move not to ask their names, and so he may have been reluctant to mention this.

A crucial point of time would be when Mizen realized that Neil had NOT been spoken to by two men, as he himself would have believed. When did that happen? Late in the process, apparently, since the information was still being scrutinized on Sunday, Neil being hauled over the coals. And Mizen belonged to another division, meaning that information would not be all that easy to compare. So we may be dealing with something a lot less sinister on Mizen´s behalf than you seem to imagine.

"But then how many coppers does that take?"

Mizen couldn´t possibly KNOW what was amiss and why his fellow PC needed help, could he? In fact, this is why we may need to realize that a lying Mizen at the inquest would preferably NOT have mentioned the other PC - for that PC potentially had something on his hands that required fast help, and therefore Mizen would have been wise to leave it out if he wanted to look better at the inquest. The fact that he never did speaks much in favour of his truthfulness!

"Something’s not adding up, and this was Mizen’s account, which you argue he only reluctantly gave when he could no longer pretend his encounter with the two witnesses from Buck’s Row had never happened."

As you will know from the above, this is not an easy call. You need to weigh in a lot more than you seem willing to do, Caz!

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
You see, Caz, Lechmere has no interest at all of telling Mizen the severity of the situation, since that could make the good PC crave that Lechmere follows him back to the spot. Instead he paints a picture that tells Mizen that there is a woman in Buck´s Row who is so inebriated that she can´t stand on her own two feet - a standard problem that will not cause Mizen to think twice about letting the carmen pass, checked out as they must have been by that trustworthy colleague of his."

"But don’t you see, Fishy?"

Eh ... what?

"That’s precisely the problem here and it’s all in the timing. Mizen would have said as much straight away if it were true. What more perfect excuse could he have had for not hot-footing it to the scene or taking any witness details? A mere drunk with a policeman already in attendance, who had asked two passing carmen to fetch assistance? Why would he or his ‘trustworthy colleague’ have felt the need to ‘check them out’ under those circumstances?"

Please, Caz - no more wudda´s! And you may rest assured that Mizen would NOT have thought "Hmmm, my colleague will probably not have taken down any details, since this probably is an errand that demands little attention." Instead he will have thought that the PC in Buck´s Row would have taken the right decision NO MATTER WHAT, and that he himsewlf needn´t worry about these bits. A logical enough train of thoght, I should say!
And Lechmere, he would say the exact same I believe ...

"Why does Mizen only give this perfectly reasonable (or conveniently arse-covering) account of his actions when he can no longer pretend to have no knowledge of anyone coming from Buck’s Row?"

See the above.

"What would he have had to fear from describing his encounter with the carmen the moment he learned the woman’s real fate, if his version of it was the plain unvarnished truth?"

Nothing much - but why would he contact his superiors and ask them whether Neil had told then about the carmen? That would have been slightly ludicrous! He would - of course - surmise that his colleague would tell this - and to Mizen it was the truth.

"According to his own belated account, he had done very little wrong and could hardly have been blamed. So why was it so belated and why did he deny any of it initially, unless the truth could have got him into much more serious trouble?"

See the above - again.

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
Mizen would probably have realized that he had made a fool of himself by not halting the carmen or at least taking their names down, and he would have hoped (in vain) not to be revealed for what he did. It was an understandable mistake…"

"Exactly so, an ‘understandable mistake’ if he was only informed that the woman was drunk and a policeman had sent the men to fetch assistance for her. Certainly not worth risking his career and his livelihood by denying anything of the sort had happened, only to have to admit it later, when the men talked and it was inevitable that he would be identified as the officer they had approached. He could hardly have gone on denying everything, with not one but two witnesses describing much the same event. But he could limit the personal damage significantly with the version he eventually came up with."

Guess what? See the above ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, Caz is right.
See above, all.

[Cogidubnus]

Curious Neil was not at fault for taking 30 minutes to cover his beat - all beats could be walked quicker if the officer merely had to walk around and not stop along the way, looking in alleys, checking doors, talking to night watchmen etc.
There were mistakes but that wasnt one of them

How do you know? It was a twelve minute beat, and the last time he'd turned up at Bucks Row was half an hour before...questions would surely have been asked? Where was he for example at 0330 approx when, according to the only real witness of any kind, the murder took place?

I'm not a great lover of conspiracy theories, but could the explanation for this lay behind Harriet Lilley not being called as a witness?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

David:

"Caz is right."

If you can prove that, then your remark belongs to the boards.

If you cannot, then you are potentialy misleading and providing the boards with unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo.

And we all know what applies.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"How do you know? It was a twelve minute beat, and the last time he'd turned up at Bucks Row was half an hour before...questions would surely have been asked?"

He COULD cover his beat in twelve minutes, Dave, but he SHOULD not. The PC:s were expected to walk at a measured speed, checking on things like doors and such, and not rushing things. No police beat was walked in the minimum time frame, unless there was pressing reason to do so.

I also think that their beats took longer time to walk on the nights, since there were more things to check then - the PC:s did not go around checking shop doors and such in daytime; that would only have the door opened and the proprietor asking what you needed .

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

He COULD cover his beat in twelve minutes, Dave, but he SHOULD not. The PC:s were expected to walk at a measured speed, checking on things like doors and such, and not rushing things.

And the low measured walking pace of, I think 2.5 miles per hour, surely took this into account...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Dave:

"And the low measured walking pace of, I think 2.5 miles per hour, surely took this into account..."

Dave, Neil´s beat was encircled by Brady Street, Buck´s Row, Baker´s Row and Whitechapel Street. If he simply walked that loop, then he had about 800 yards to cover, and that would have tallied well with the twelve minute time.

However, inside that loop there were other streets like Winthrop Street, Thomas Street and Court Street that will also have belonged to Neils beat. Once we allow for him doing his rounds on these stretches too, probably varying the beat from time to time, and once we accept that he was not supposed to walk only - he was also supposed to check doors, ladders; all the things that needed being checked every once in a while, we realize that twelve minutes was not the time the beat was going to take him

We can aslo see that nobody questions why he took half an hour to complete the beat, in spite of it being stated that it COULD be covered in twelve minutes.

I don´t think there was any cover-up from the police about this, to save Neil´s behind, especially not since the twelve minute estimation was offered by the self same source; Neil, by the looks of things. "Quickly walked over", the beat was a twelve minut one. But he was not expected to be quick, he was expected to be thorough!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:
"Caz is right."
If you can prove that, then your remark belongs to the boards.
Fisherman

Hi Fish
Caz is right because her arguments and reasonings are valid.
And belong to the boards.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Caz is right because her arguments and reasonings are valid."

Valid? How? Why?

And does that make my reasoning unvalid? If so, how? And why?

You are digging your own grave here, my friend. Unneccessarily so, but if that is your wish...

Fisherman

[curious]

David:

"Caz is right."

If you can prove that, then your remark belongs to the boards.

If you cannot, then you are potentialy misleading and providing the boards with unsubstantiated mumbo-jumbo.

And we all know what applies.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman,
Unless you are being intentionally facetious here, that is absolutely the funniest post I have ever read on Casebook.

curious

[Fisherman]

You think?

Then - Curiously - you have missed the best parts!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Curious, what about that chilling one ?

David:
You are digging your own grave here, my friend. Unneccessarily so, but if that is your wish...
Fisherman

Seriously, Fish, it needs a whole cemetery to bury all those who are still unconvinced by your theory.