Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Robert]

Hi David

Always reported as noticed by a juryman, never the Coroner? Well, first, I doubt if the Coroner would have wanted to jump on Crossmere the minute he entered the box, before he could give the bulk of his testimony (although I think that Macdonald warned Maxwell to be careful at the commencement of her evidence). Also, I seem to remember that the point about the policeman came at the end of his testimony, so maybe the jury beat the Coroner to it. But really, one has to say that if a juryman noticed the discrepancy, surely the police would have too, and even if they hadn't, the jury helpfully pointed it out for them so they would not have been unaware of it after September 3rd. You might say that they were unaware of its significance, but then it would be odd if Crossmere, having to think on the spur of the moment in Buck's Row, was perfectly aware of the point at issue but the police completely failed to spot it.

The discrepancy would have been apparent to the police as early as August 31st, when the police found themselves having to trace two men who, they surely must have thought, could possibly have been the murderer/murderers. The fact that these two men missed the first day of the inquest would not have encouraged the police to simply assume their innocence,

[David Orsam]

My post related to what the police would have thought of it, not the coroner.

Yes I appreciate that but why would the coroner have understood the evidence any differently from the police? There were senior police officers in court. They heard what was said and one of them would probably have prepared a report on the inquest for his superiors. I wouldn't expect any further examining of "inquest records" to have occurred.

[Chris]

I also wouldn't expect to find anything in the witness statement of Cross. His evidence about what he said to Mizen was extracted by a juryman after Mizen had testified orally - and there would have been no reason to have included a negative in his statement unless he had been specifically asked it by the interviewing officer, of which we have no evidence.

I don't understand that at all. Cross's statement must have made it clear that there was no other policeman there when he left the scene.

[Chris]

Yes I appreciate that but why would the coroner have understood the evidence any differently from the police?

Because hearing a small fraction of the evidence given orally is very different from having the time to examine and compare much fuller written statements.

[Robert]

David, you think that the police would have been denied access to the inquest statements?

Crossmere's police statement would very probably have contained information about the discrepancy. The police might not have been a bunch of Einsteins, but they were not a bunch of Clousseaus either.

[David Orsam]

David, you think that the police would have been denied access to the inquest statements?

Crossmere's police statement would very probably have contained information about the discrepancy. The police might not have been a bunch of Einsteins, but they were not a bunch of Clousseaus either.

Of course not, had they wanted to sit and read them but I can't see how it would have been a useful allocation of police resources for someone to have read through the coroner's clerk's handwritten notes of an inquest at which senior police officers had attended and for which the police had their own statements. As I have already mentioned, the discrepancy was extracted from Cross by a juryman after the coroner had finished his questions of the witness so, for that reason, I would suggest that it is very unlikely to have been in his statement. People don't usually include in their statements things they did not say.

[David Orsam]

Because hearing a small fraction of the evidence given orally is very different from having the time to examine and compare much fuller written statements.

Is that really what the police spent their time doing in this investigation? Well, had they done so, as I already have mentioned, they probably not have even noticed a discrepancy bearing in mind that (for the reason I have given) Cross's statement probably did not include any mention of what he claims he did not say to Mizen.

[Chris]

Is that really what the police spent their time doing in this investigation? Well, had they done so, as I already have mentioned, they probably not have even noticed a discrepancy bearing in mind that (for the reason I have given) Cross's statement probably did not include any mention of what he claims he did not say to Mizen.

Well, I would certainly hope the police spent at least some time examining and comparing the statements they had been given. Otherwise, what would be the point of taking them in the first place?

And did you miss my post about Cross's statement above? It really doesn't matter whether it specifically said what he had or hadn't told Mizen. The point is that it must have been clear from his statement that he hadn't met another policeman at the scene, so the discrepancy with Mizen's claim must have been clear.

[Robert]

Well, a bit puzzled here because I would have thought that the police would actively have questioned Crossmere about the discrepancy before or during the making of his statement rather than sitting there hoping that he'd mention it. They would have known about the discrepancy as early as the day of the murder.

One thing I'm sure it's OK for me to mention is that during my jury service several years ago a number of statements or affidavits were read out, and the same phrase occurred several times : "I didn't give anyone permission to steal my car." It was obvious that the police had asked the same question of a number of people. I remember it because it wasn't "I didn't give anyone permission to take my car" but "I didn't give anyone permission to steal my car" which is the kind of thing that sticks in your mind.

[David Orsam]

It really doesn't matter whether it specifically said what he had or hadn't told Mizen. The point is that it must have been clear from his statement that he hadn't met another policeman at the scene, so the discrepancy with Mizen's claim must have been clear.

It was so clear that the coroner specifically had to ask him if he saw Neil in Buck's Row:

"Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row". (LWN, 9 Sept 88)

I'm sure you understand me to be saying that it obviously wasn't clear from his statement at all.

[David Orsam]

It was so clear that the coroner specifically had to ask him if he saw Neil in Buck's Row:

"Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row". (LWN, 9 Sept 88)

I'm sure you understand me to be saying that it obviously wasn't clear from his statement at all.

Another version of this exchange:

The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil about?

Witness - No; I did not see anyone at all around except the constable I spoke to. I don't think I met anybody after I left my house till I got to the body.

(Morning Advertiser, 4 Sept 88)

[Chris]

I'm sure you understand me to be saying that it obviously wasn't clear from his statement at all.

If you make yourself clear, I'll do my best to understand you.

However, I wouldn't have expected the coroner to be shown his police statement in 1888. I may be wrong, of course.

[David Orsam]

I wouldn't have expected the coroner to be shown his police statement in 1888. I may be wrong, of course.

I'm not saying he wouldn't have seen the statement. My point is that statements are taken of witnesses as to what they did, what they saw and what they said. They don't normally include things they did not do, did not see or did not say.

[FrankO]

Mizen did take action. He told the Coroner what he remembered of his conversation with Cross. That was all it was possible for him to do.

Are you suggesting that, David, once he had left the witness box at the inquest, Mizen wasn’t allowed to tell his superiors that he knew Cross had lied to him, wasn’t allowed to bring it to the attention of the police division in charge of the case, wasn’t allowed to talk to the press?

[Chris]

My point is that statements are taken of witnesses as to what they did, what they saw and what they said. They don't normally include things they did not do, did not see or did not say.

So if he'd seen a policeman in Buck's Row he would have mentioned it, obviously.