The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Abby Normal]

As I said before, there are three points to consider.

Charles Lechmere did not say "I found this body in Bucks Row...". He instead said "You are wanted in Bucks Row by a policeman. A woman has been found there..." Thereby, he effectively kept his own role as the finder from Mizen, whether intentional or not. And that applies with or without the other policeman.

According to Mizen, he was told that another PC was in place.

According to Mizen, Lechmere said nothing about murder or suicide, he only said that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row.

So why is it that these three matters are the exact points of misinformation that would help to get Lechmere past the police, if he was the killer? Why are there no misunderstandings/misinformation about matters that would not have had that effect? Mizen could for example have thought that he had been told that it was a man who was found in Bucks Row ("man" is part of the word "wo-man"), so that would have been likely, perhaps? Why was it not about getting the street name wrong? About getting the position of the body wrong?

Why is it only and exclusively about three matters that would all have served to lower the attention of Jonas Mizen? The difference is monumental:

1. Look, Mr constable, I found this woman in Bucks Row, who I think is dead. She is lying there all alone.

2. Evening, constable! A colleague of yours have found this woman lying around down in Bucks Row, where I just passed. He requests help, so you may need to go there.

Which version will get attention and which will not? Which version will have Jonas Mizen urgently checking things out and which is likely to make him think there is no imminent rush?

It is all fine to happy-go-lucky reason that it is all coincidental that the there matters were tailor-made to take Lechmere past the police. But any investigator worth his salt would likely take another view altogether of it.

hi fish. good to see you back.
i think the most likliest thing that happened is a misunderstanding/ misremembering by mizen.

lech tells him hes needed in bucks row, and when he gets there a pc is already in place, so he misremembers later that lech said your needed in bucks row by a policeman. simplest and most reasonable conclusion, no?

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer and all,

I don't think it would make a whole lot of difference if we would accept that Mizen did follow up on the story about a woman lying in Buck's Row, whether he immediately went there or after some hesitating.

I think that his actions would mirror the information he was given, meaning that if he had rushed immediately, he would have been told of a possible murder, but if he took his time about it, he was more likely not informed about any gravity at all. And to me, that is of great interest.

Furthermore, if we would assume for a moment that Neil is supposed to have seen Mizen only passing Buck's Row on Baker's Row, then he would have been very lucky indeed to have been able to see him for a brief moment more than 200 yards away and also be able to get his attention at that very moment. Jon's map makes this clear. With this in mind it just seems more likely that Mizen had, in fact, decided to follow up and turned into Buck's Row when Neil spotted him or, more likely, his bull's eye lamp.

Yes! Flowers, chocolate, champagne! Somebody actually answers my question!! Thank you, Frank! I concur very much, as you will realize. The thing is, if this is true, it means that Steven Blomers claim that Jonas Mizen was slack and probably tried to avoid going to Bucks Row at all, as proven by how he was supposedly observed by Neil in Bakers Row, can not be true. And although it will be hard to prove either way, it clears away Steven Blomers claim that Neil must have seen Mizen in Bakers Row, taking the accusations made by Blomer along as it dissolves.

On the other hand, I can very well imagine that, Neil knowing the layout of Buck’s Row very well indeed and quite probably knowing that Mizen/the neighbouring beat officer would pass Buck’s Row on Baker’s Row, in order for him to see this neighbouring beat officer actually pass Buck’s Row, he would know that he would have to move towards the front of the board school to be able to see Mizen and the closer he got to that position, the bigger the chance he would be able to see him.

I have given this a lot of thought, and I don't think we can rely on this at all. It would basically mean that Neil would be able to tell each bricks impact on his view along his whole beat, and I don't think that is realistic. It also applies that Neil walked away from Bakers Row down Bucks Row, not towards Bakers Row. And we are less likely to know the exact layout of structures we do not see, since they are not in front of us. What you suggest would make Neil know that he needed to go to the other side of the street to be able to see the Bakers Row outlet, and accordingly, his seeing Mizen would then be likely to be the result of Neil doing just that. He would have thought, after alerting Thain to the scene, "let's see if I can see my colleague in Bakers Row and alert him here too!" And then he would cross over the street, waiting to catch a two second glimpse of Mizen, banking on how Mizen would look down Bucks Row and see himself during those two seconds. And all the while, he would not know WHEN mizen would pass up at Bakers Row. For all he knew, Mizen could have been engaged in something that alternated his beat timings. Would Neil prioritize such an endeavor? I find it hard to believe. Mizen would become visible from beside the murder site once he had passed perhaps thirty, forty yards or so down Bucks Row. I believe it is much likelier that this was what happened, and Neil saw him from a position by the murder site, predisposing that he was in Bakers Row.

In conclusion, both are good possibilities. Mizen could have decided to follow up on the story and was somewhere in Buck’s Row when Neil spotted him; Mizen would then at least have to have reached the “Empties” on the corner of Thomas Street (the part north of Buck’s Row) on Jon’s map. Or Neil could have moved to(wards) the wider part of Buck’s Row to enable him to see an officer passing Buck’s Row on Baker’s Row. Or perhaps both were true.

The best,
Frank

Regardless of what applies, I am very happy to hear that you concur about how it is likely that Mizen was in Bucks Row when Neil noticed his lantern. That is the gist of the matter, and as Steven Blomer put it in his final point quoted above: it changes everything for Mizen. But the other way around.

[Fisherman]

Hi George,

We are faced with the classic 'he said/she said' conflict because we have two witnesses who are giving conflicting testimony. Mizen claims he was told something along the lines of "You are wanted in Buck's Row (by a policeman). A woman is lying there."

Cross denies this, of course, when asked by the jury.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row?
The Witness: No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

When there is a disagreement such as this, we can often trace it to an initial misunderstanding.

What I think Cross said to Mizen was "You are wanted in Buck's Row. A woman is lying there. I think she is dead or drunk."

From Mizen's perspective, he is seeing two men walking away from Buck's Row where this woman is lying, thus not demonstrating any real sense of urgency, and knowing in the back of his mind that another PC walks a beat down Buck's Row, he assumed that this 'you are wanted' was not being used as a figure of speech, but that there was some unspecified person (obviously PC Neill) who wanted his assistance with a woman who was either dead or drunk.

He then continued knocking people up but also made his way towards Buck's Row with no particular haste or sense of urgency.

When he later learned about the criticism leveled at him by Robert Paul, he amended his memory from the actual "you are wanted in Buck's Row" to "You are wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman," which, I suspect, was not what Cross said.

People will do this sort of thing when faced with criticism or conflict aimed in their direction. Everyone has had the experience of arguing over what was actually said when a conflict arises. It doesn't mean that either party is lying outright, but it is often the case that the aggrieved party will not want to admit that he had misinterpreted the initial exchange.

That's how I see it.

I also think Robert Paul's criticism of Mizen is a mask to cover what might be perceived by the public as his own indifference.

As I said before, there are three points to consider.

Charles Lechmere did not say "I found this body in Bucks Row...". He instead said "You are wanted in Bucks Row by a policeman. A woman has been found there..." Thereby, he effectively kept his own role as the finder from Mizen, whether intentional or not. And that applies with or without the other policeman.

According to Mizen, he was told that another PC was in place.

According to Mizen, Lechmere said nothing about murder or suicide, he only said that there was a woman flat on her back in Bucks Row.

So why is it that these three matters are the exact points of misinformation that would help to get Lechmere past the police, if he was the killer? Why are there no misunderstandings/misinformation about matters that would not have had that effect? Mizen could for example have thought that he had been told that it was a man who was found in Bucks Row ("man" is part of the word "wo-man"), so that would have been likely, perhaps? Why was it not about getting the street name wrong? About getting the position of the body wrong?

Why is it only and exclusively about three matters that would all have served to lower the attention of Jonas Mizen? The difference is monumental:

1. Look, Mr constable, I found this woman in Bucks Row, who I think is dead. She is lying there all alone.

2. Evening, constable! A colleague of yours have found this woman lying around down in Bucks Row, where I just passed. He requests help, so you may need to go there.

Which version will get attention and which will not? Which version will have Jonas Mizen urgently checking things out and which is likely to make him think there is no imminent rush?

It is all fine to happy-go-lucky reason that it is all coincidental that the there matters were tailor-made to take Lechmere past the police. But any investigator worth his salt would likely take another view altogether of it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon,

I'm not quite following the logic of what you and RJ and saying here. All four reports contain the subject "you are wanted", and two of those reports contain a qualifier as to by whom he was wanted. The other two reports are just abbreviated. I can't see the meaning was other than what was said.

Cheers, George

You got there before me, George. Bingo!

[Fisherman]

With regard to the point made by RJ in post 2, which reflects my own take on the exchange.

As we do not have the original inquest record, we must compare press reports of Mizen's testimony.

What exactly did Cross say to Mizen when they met?
According to Mizen....

Daily News - "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

Morning Advertiser - "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

Times - "You are wanted in Baker's-row."

Daily Telegraph - "....another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row"

I don't see how Mizen can be accused of lying when the various journalists who were present at the inquest couldn't get his testimony right.
The meaning of what Cross said is easier to establish, that the actual words he used.

These are not examples of the papers getting his testimony wrong, though - they are examples of some of the papers reporting it in an incomplete fashion. Whether or not Mizen said that Lechmere had mentioned a PC is beyond doubt, since we know that a jury member asked Lechmere if it was true like Mizen said, that Lechmere had claimed that another PC was in place in Bucks Row.

[Fisherman]

Is this line of sight what the debate is about?

That anyone stood by the body (X at far right), could not see a policeman patrolling in Baker's Row ( O Mizen at far left).



It does look like someone would have to be stood nearer the north side of Bucks Row (by the Wharf), in order to see someone in Bakers Row.

Well, Jon, that is the exact line of sight that Steven Blomer says the debate is about. What I am suggesting is that the view of Bakers Row may well never have been part of how John Neil first noticed Jonas Mizen. I am saying that he was likely some way down Bucks Row as Neil saw him, but predisposed that he was in Bakers Row for the simple reason that this was the only place he could have been in if he followed his beat. I believe that what Neil could see from 200 yards plus away was Mizens lantern, and once he did, he thunk "Oh, there is the PC on the Bakers Row beat". Little did he know that Mizen had been urged by Lechmere to go to Bucks Row, and therefore he had no reason to think that Mizen was anywhere else than in Bakers Row.
Conversely, Steven Blomer claims that since Neil said that he noticed his fellow constable in Bakers Row, this must be true, and if it is, it gives away that Jonas Mizen was slack and lied to the inquest afterwards, making him the scammer, not Lechmere.

It all hinges on that question I keep asking, although nobody seems to want to answer it: Is it a certainty that Mizen was seen in Bakers Row by Neil, or could it just as well be that Mizen was in Bucks Row as Neil saw him, simply predisposing that he was in Bakers Row, for the simple reason that Neil know that this was where that PC had his beat, a beat that did not extend into Bucks Row. Accordingly, Neil would always think that any PCs light he saw in the distance, must have been that of the Bakers Row PC.

[Fisherman]

RJ probably understood better than I did where you were coming from in your post that I responded to.

To be honest, at the moment I'm not especially interested in whether or not Mizen lied, because I don't think it makes much difference. I think Lechmere's version of the conversation is more believable than Mizen's, but that doesn't require one to believe that Mizen lied. I've always thought it more likely that Mizen misunderstood what was said at the time, or misremembered it later, than that he lied. So even if you can establish that Mizen went directly to Buck's Row, I would view it as only confirming what I previously thought. However, if Steve Blomer were to join the discussion, I could imagine that I might develop more of an interest.

I am very interested in whether or not Mizen lied, and I am quite convinced that it makes a world of difference. And when you say that it is more likely that Mizen misunderstood than that he lied, you leave out the option of how he did neither. Once we choose on such grounds, we are in trouble factually.

I would personally very much like to see a participation on Steven Blomers behalf, but he is habitually uninclined to discuss with me. Since this is a matter that concerns the credibility of a suggestion he has invested very heavily in, I would have presumed that he would be interested in giving his view.

[Fisherman]

Yes, this comes across as obscure minutia concerning what might seem like a minor and unrelated issue, but what Christer is arguing, I think, is that it is actually relevant. The main bone of contention is whether Mizen was telling the truth about being alerted to a policeman being at the scene, or whether Cross was lying, or whether it was simply a communication breakdown that went pear-shaped.

What Christer seems to be arguing is that Mizen would have no need to have lied about it because the evidence shows that he went more-or-less directly to Buck's Row, while Steve Blomer and others have suggested that he may not have done so or didn't do so.

This was discussed at considerable length here:

The Mizen piece - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century (jtrforums.com)

When it comes to relevance, Steven Blomer uses a full chapter, some sixteen pages, map upon map and timing suggestions galore to make the point that Jonas Mizen, not Charles Lechmere, was the scammer. I'd say that this sets the scene for what relevance the author ascribes to the matter. And the main point he is making is that John Neils statement that he saw Jonas Mizen in Bakers Row, decides the issue to Lechmeres favor, claiming that how Mizen would have been observed at the southernmost part of the Bakers Row outlet into Bucks Row clinches that he was slack and seemingly had the intention to avoid going to Bucks Row.

Reasoning that this is "obscure minutiae" is going to have to stand for you. In my world, it is a serious allegation based on what is most likely a faulty presumption made by John Neil.

You say that what I seem to be arguing is that Mizen did his duty in the correct way. To be fair, there can be no proving it, but the problem here is that Steven Blomer claims that he can come close to proving the opposite - and then he bases all of it on what is likely a faulty presumption on Neils behalf. If Steven Blomer had mentioned this option in his book, his readers would have had the option to decide for themselves what to beleive - but they would have had to do so against the backdrop of the author presenting as an unshakeable fact that Jonas Mizen was observed in Bakers Row by John Neil. And we all know what can happen if we are deprived of important information before making a decision. So what I am actually arguing, is that the claim that Lechmere is the likely liar needs to be replaced by the notion that it is instead Mizen who is that liar, is based on what is seemingly faulty material. Therefore, no allegations against Jonas Mizen to have been slack and to have lied about it at the inquest, has any legs to stand on.

The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information. Why the information is not given in Steven Blomers book is another matter, but given it is not.

[FrankO]

If we can agree that it may well be that Neil simply predisposed that Mizen was in Bakers Row whereas he may equally well have been some way down Bucks Row, then away goes the claim that Mizen must have been slack and lying about it at the inquest.

Hi Christer and all,

I don't think it would make a whole lot of difference if we would accept that Mizen did follow up on the story about a woman lying in Buck's Row, whether he immediately went there or after some hesitating.

Furthermore, if we would assume for a moment that Neil is supposed to have seen Mizen only passing Buck's Row on Baker's Row, then he would have been very lucky indeed to have been able to see him for a brief moment more than 200 yards away and also be able to get his attention at that very moment. Jon's map makes this clear. With this in mind it just seems more likely that Mizen had, in fact, decided to follow up and turned into Buck's Row when Neil spotted him or, more likely, his bull's eye lamp.

On the other hand, I can very well imagine that, Neil knowing the layout of Buck’s Row very well indeed and quite probably knowing that Mizen/the neighbouring beat officer would pass Buck’s Row on Baker’s Row, in order for him to see this neighbouring beat officer actually pass Buck’s Row, he would know that he would have to move towards the front of the board school to be able to see Mizen and the closer he got to that position, the bigger the chance he would be able to see him.

In conclusion, both are good possibilities. Mizen could have decided to follow up on the story and was somewhere in Buck’s Row when Neil spotted him; Mizen would then at least have to have reached the “Empties” on the corner of Thomas Street (the part north of Buck’s Row) on Jon’s map. Or Neil could have moved to(wards) the wider part of Buck’s Row to enable him to see an officer passing Buck’s Row on Baker’s Row. Or perhaps both were true.

The best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi George,

We are faced with the classic 'he said/she said' conflict because we have two witnesses who are giving conflicting testimony. Mizen claims he was told something along the lines of "You are wanted in Buck's Row (by a policeman). A woman is lying there."

Cross denies this, of course, when asked by the jury.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row?
The Witness: No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

When there is a disagreement such as this, we can often trace it to an initial misunderstanding.

What I think Cross said to Mizen was "You are wanted in Buck's Row. A woman is lying there. I think she is dead or drunk."

From Mizen's perspective, he is seeing two men walking away from Buck's Row where this woman is lying, thus not demonstrating any real sense of urgency, and knowing in the back of his mind that another PC walks a beat down Buck's Row, he assumed that this 'you are wanted' was not being used as a figure of speech, but that there was some unspecified person (obviously PC Neill) who wanted his assistance with a woman who was either dead or drunk.

He then continued knocking people up but also made his way towards Buck's Row with no particular haste or sense of urgency.

When he later learned about the criticism leveled at him by Robert Paul, he amended his memory from the actual "you are wanted in Buck's Row" to "You are wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman," which, I suspect, was not what Cross said.

People will do this sort of thing when faced with criticism or conflict aimed in their direction. Everyone has had the experience of arguing over what was actually said when a conflict arises. It doesn't mean that either party is lying outright, but it is often the case that the aggrieved party will not want to admit that he had misinterpreted the initial exchange.

That's how I see it.

I also think Robert Paul's criticism of Mizen is a mask to cover what might be perceived by the public as his own indifference.

Hi Roger,

This mirrors my view, I couldn't have worded it any better.

Cheers,
Frank

[rjpalmer]

Hi Jon,

I'm not quite following the logic of what you and RJ and saying here. All four reports contain the subject "you are wanted", and two of those reports contain a qualifier as to by whom he was wanted. The other two reports are just abbreviated. I can't see the meaning was other than what was said.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

We are faced with the classic 'he said/she said' conflict because we have two witnesses who are giving conflicting testimony. Mizen claims he was told something along the lines of "You are wanted in Buck's Row (by a policeman). A woman is lying there."

Cross denies this, of course, when asked by the jury.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another policeman wanted him in Buck's-row?
The Witness: No; because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

When there is a disagreement such as this, we can often trace it to an initial misunderstanding.

What I think Cross said to Mizen was "You are wanted in Buck's Row. A woman is lying there. I think she is dead or drunk."

From Mizen's perspective, he is seeing two men walking away from Buck's Row where this woman is lying, thus not demonstrating any real sense of urgency, and knowing in the back of his mind that another PC walks a beat down Buck's Row, he assumed that this 'you are wanted' was not being used as a figure of speech, but that there was some unspecified person (obviously PC Neill) who wanted his assistance with a woman who was either dead or drunk.

He then continued knocking people up but also made his way towards Buck's Row with no particular haste or sense of urgency.

When he later learned about the criticism leveled at him by Robert Paul, he amended his memory from the actual "you are wanted in Buck's Row" to "You are wanted in Buck's Row by a policeman," which, I suspect, was not what Cross said.

People will do this sort of thing when faced with criticism or conflict aimed in their direction. Everyone has had the experience of arguing over what was actually said when a conflict arises. It doesn't mean that either party is lying outright, but it is often the case that the aggrieved party will not want to admit that he had misinterpreted the initial exchange.

That's how I see it.

I also think Robert Paul's criticism of Mizen is a mask to cover what might be perceived by the public as his own indifference.

[GBinOz]

With regard to the point made by RJ in post 2, which reflects my own take on the exchange.

As we do not have the original inquest record, we must compare press reports of Mizen's testimony.

What exactly did Cross say to Mizen when they met?
According to Mizen....

Daily News - "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

Morning Advertiser - "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

Times - "You are wanted in Baker's-row."

Daily Telegraph - "....another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row"

I don't see how Mizen can be accused of lying when the various journalists who were present at the inquest couldn't get his testimony right.
The meaning of what Cross said is easier to establish, that the actual words he used.

Hi Jon,

I'm not quite following the logic of what you and RJ and saying here. All four reports contain the subject "you are wanted", and two of those reports contain a qualifier as to by whom he was wanted. The other two reports are just abbreviated. I can't see the meaning was other than what was said.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

With regard to the point made by RJ in post 2, which reflects my own take on the exchange.

As we do not have the original inquest record, we must compare press reports of Mizen's testimony.

What exactly did Cross say to Mizen when they met?
According to Mizen....

Daily News - "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there."

Morning Advertiser - "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

Times - "You are wanted in Baker's-row."

Daily Telegraph - "....another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row"

I don't see how Mizen can be accused of lying when the various journalists who were present at the inquest couldn't get his testimony right.
The meaning of what Cross said is easier to establish, that the actual words he used.

[Wickerman]

Now, here is how Steve Blomer reasons:

John Neil saw another constable in Bakers Row, after having signalled down John Thain. This constable was Jonas Mizen. It applies, Steve Blomer then says, that the outlet from Bakers Row was not visible from the murder spot. Therefore, John Neil could not have seen Jonas Mizen from that position.

However, Steve Blomer adds, if John Neil left the murder site and walked over from the southern to the northern pavement of Bucks Row, the outlet would come into sight. But only a third of it, roughly. And than part was the southernmost part of the outlet. Accordingly, Steve Blomer reasons that when John Neil saw Jonas Mizen in Bakers Row, Mizen must have been visible on that spot - the southernmost third of the outlet of Bakers Row into Bucks Row....

Is this line of sight what the debate is about?

That anyone stood by the body (X at far right), could not see a policeman patrolling in Baker's Row ( O Mizen at far left).



It does look like someone would have to be stood nearer the north side of Bucks Row (by the Wharf), in order to see someone in Bakers Row.

[Lewis C]

The main issue is about whether or not we must accept that PC Mizen was in Bakers Row when John Neil was made aware of him. Of course, anything that relates to the Mizen scam is not off topic as such, but the question above is the true topic here. If we can agree that it may well be that Neil simply predisposed that Mizen was in Bakers Row whereas he may equally well have been some way down Bucks Row, then away goes the claim that Mizen must have been slack and lying about it at the inquest. Since I consider this question the actual topic of the thread, and since I explained this to R J, I fail to see that I would have been in any way uncivil. On the contrary, I take great care to avoid that precise thing, for the simple reason that I have seen way too many Lechmere threads done to death by aggressive and rude participation on behalf of various posters out here. To make sure that no misunderstanding remains, I am only too happy to tell R J that if he feels unfairly treated, that was not my intention and I will gladly apologize if that helps.
If you are actually interested in the matter, why donīt you give your answer to the question I am asking - it would help take the discussion forward.

RJ probably understood better than I did where you were coming from in your post that I responded to.

To be honest, at the moment I'm not especially interested in whether or not Mizen lied, because I don't think it makes much difference. I think Lechmere's version of the conversation is more believable than Mizen's, but that doesn't require one to believe that Mizen lied. I've always thought it more likely that Mizen misunderstood what was said at the time, or misremembered it later, than that he lied. So even if you can establish that Mizen went directly to Buck's Row, I would view it as only confirming what I previously thought. However, if Steve Blomer were to join the discussion, I could imagine that I might develop more of an interest.