Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Sally]

Sally I've been saying the same thing over and over again, but common sense and real life experience of people mis-remembering due to outside input [e a policeman actually being there] don't seem to count for much in Ripperland.

Thanks Gut - yes, I agree. Miscommunication could also have played a part - most would recognise how commonplace that is. It's very easy to see how it could have occurred between strangers in an extraordinary situation where the exchange was brief and hurried. All of them were concerned with their jobs at the time, quite apart from anything else - Paul and Crossmere with getting to work late; Mizen with knocking up - so that should probably be factored in as well.

The premise that the apparent contradiction between the accounts of Mizen and Crossmere must amount to a lie by one of them rests on an assumption of perfect recollection - certainly not a given.

[Sally]

With a little red lion stamped on his forehead ?

Unless we have a photo from which to draw our own conclusions Mr B, we'll never know.

Besides, wouldn't it have been covered by his helmet?

[David Orsam]

I think you'll find that in 1888 police officers could communicate with their superiors other than through the medium of a coroner's court.

My post #367: "I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to speak to his superiors".

[David Orsam]

I heard you the first time, David. But as long as you don’t offer something objective to corroborate your claim, I don’t put much stock in it. But I can understand why you have to.

There's nothing to corroborate. It's just a fact that Mizen had told the coroner - and his superiors who were in attendance at the inquest - what he knew and what he had been told, so telling them again would have achieved precisely nothing. A bit like me repeating this point over and over (hence my "one more time" comment).

[David Orsam]

I am sorry [I am trying hard to stay out of Lechmere land] but that is simply wrong.

Witness statements often talk of things note done, saw and said.

I didn't see anyone there, I didn't say I'll punch you, I didn't go into the room are just three obvious examples, statement are not just the ramblings of a witness but are prepared almost always, after a Q & A session where appropriate questions have been asked.

Hi GUT,

My posts at #351 and#358 need to be read in the context of my #345: "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". (bold added)

I was trying to keep my posts short last night and didn't want to have to keep repeating something obvious. What I was trying to say was that a witness would normally not be telling the police something he didn't see or say unless specifically asked. And I was also talking about 1888 when training of officers in how to take statements was not quite advanced as today. I have seen plenty of statements taken by police in the nineteenth century and the file relating to the (1907) murder of Emily Dimmock is not only filled with statements of witnesses full of ambiguities with obvious questions unanswered (because they were unasked) but also of supplemental statements containing evidence which the police omitted to extract first time round.

[David Orsam]

The premise that the apparent contradiction between the accounts of Mizen and Crossmere must amount to a lie by one of them rests on an assumption of perfect recollection - certainly not a given.

Hi Sally - I'm sure you appreciate from my posts that this is not a premise underlying anything I have said.

[Sally]

Hi Sally - I'm sure you appreciate from my posts that this is not a premise underlying anything I have said.

Hi David,

I wasn't targetting anybody specifically. I have simply observed that a great deal of discussion regarding the apparent contradiction between statements - recent and historic - has revolved around the underlying premise that somebody must have lied.

Obviously, that's not the case.

[FrankO]

There's nothing to corroborate.

How about providing some source that corroborates that the process/structure was as rigid as you state? That’s not an unfair question.

...and his superiors who were in attendance at the inquest...

I don't believe his direct superiors were, as he was from H division and the ones who attended the inquest were from J division, CO division and Scotland Yard.

... so telling them again would have achieved precisely nothing.

That’s your opinion and that's fine. But, again, as long as you don’t provide some objective corroboration, it remains nothing more than that and something that I doubt.

A bit like me repeating this point over and over (hence my "one more time" comment).

That's why I don't repeat. Maybe it's better to agree to disagree.

[David Orsam]

Maybe it's better to agree to disagree.

I’m always happy to agree to disagree over opinions, or to concede if I am wrong, but this is not such an occasion. There is no need to discuss the structure of the Met Police in the late 19th century because I have already agreed that he was allowed to speak to his superiors. My point was that he had no business interfering in Scotland Yard’s investigation into the murder. Not sure if you challenge that but you now appear to be saying that he should have spoken to one of his direct superiors within H Division and (presumably) asked him to interfere with Scotland Yard’s investigation. Okay, let’s say that Mizen brought his theoretical concerns to a theoretical superior within H Division. That conversation could have gone something like this:

Inspector (H Division): Now then Mizen, you wanted to see me?
Mizen: Yes, sir.
Inspector: Bad business about those knocking up allegations, no?
Mizen: It was only one house, sir.
Inspector: Indeed. Well, what was it you wanted?
Mizen: The witness Cross, sir.
Inspector: One of the carmen?
Mizen: Yes, sir. He told me that I was wanted by a policeman in Buck’s Row.
Inspector: Did you mention this to the coroner?
Mizen: Yes, sir.
Inspector: So why are you telling me?
Mizen: Well sir, when Cross testified at the inquest, he denied telling me this.
Inspector: How do you know that Mizen?
Mizen: I read it in a newspaper sir.
Inspector: I see. I didn’t read anything about this in the Times but perhaps you take a cheaper paper?
Mizen: Yes, sir.
Inspector: Well Mizen what is the significance of all this?
Mizen: I find it a bit suspicious sir.
Inspector: In what way?
Mizen: Well this man Cross could have been the murderer, sir, and he misled me so that I wouldn’t detain him.
Inspector: Is it possible that he lied in order to get to work on time?
Mizen: I suppose so sir. But I still think it’s suspicious.
Inspector: What do you want me to do about it?
Mizen: Could you go to Scotland Yard and inform Detective-Inspector Abberline please sir?
Inspector: Wasn’t Abberline at the inquest?
Mizen: Yes, sir, he was there with Inspector Helson and a couple of detective-sergeants.
Inspector: So you want me to repeat to him what you told the coroner?
Mizen: Yes please, sir.
Inspector: And you want me to repeat what you have read in the newspapers about what Cross told the Coroner?
Mizen: Yes please, sir.
Inspector: Can I ask you why Mizen?
Mizen: In case the detective-inspector and the others all missed it sir.
Inspector: And the coroner too I suppose?
Mizen: Indeed, sir.
Inspector: Was Cross covered in blood when you spoke to him?
Mizen: No sir, otherwise I would have told the coroner.
Inspector: Was he carrying a knife?
Mizen: Not that I could see, sir, otherwise I would have told the corner?
Inspector: Was he acting in any way suspicious?
Mizen: No, sir, otherwise I would have detained him.
Inspector: Are you quite sure he told you that you were wanted by a policeman?
Mizen: That is my recollection, sir, as I told the coroner.
Inspector: How do I know you are not mis-remembering?
Mizen: You will have to trust me sir.
Inspector: And how do I know you are not lying to me?
Mizen: You will have to trust me sir.
Inspector: Do you know if Detective-Inspector Abberline is already aware of the evidential discrepancy you have pointed out to me?
Mizen: No, sir.
Inspector: But he attended at the inquest?
Mizen: Yes, sir.
Inspector: Do you know if he has investigated the point?
Mizen: No, so.
Inspector: So let me get this straight Mizen. You want me to go to Scotland Yard and tell Detective-Inspector Abberline that you think he might not be doing his job properly?
Mizen: Well I wasn’t-
Inspector: Have you considered another career Mizen?

[Chris]

David

Why do you keep harping on the idea that the police wouldn't have investigated further because the coroner had been told. So what if the coroner had been told?

[David Orsam]

David

Why do you keep harping on the idea that the police wouldn't have investigated further because the coroner had been told.

I haven't harped on this idea. I have never even mentioned it.

[David Orsam]

So what if the coroner had been told?

Well if the coroner was told something, then Abberline, who attended the inquest, heard it.

[Chris]

I haven't harped on this idea. I have never even mentioned it.

I was referring to this part of your dialogue:
Inspector: Did you mention this to the coroner?
Mizen: Yes, sir.
Inspector: So why are you telling me?

I'm sorry, but I think that's plain silly. The police would investigate whatever they thought worth investigating, whether it had been mentioned in the coroner's court or not. Obviously the police investigation didn't stop after the inquest was complete.

And you do continually harp on about the coroner, as though the inquest was the be all and end all of the police investigation. You said of Mizen "He has already informed his superiors, via his inquest testimony." In fact, Mizen would already have informed his superiors what happened directly, not "via his inquest testimony" at all.

The coroner actually had quite a limited role. The main objective of the police investigation was to detect the killer, not just to provide the coroner with evidence.

[RockySullivan]

If the policeman told the commissioner the carman who found the body lied I feel as though the commissioner would see the significance of the matter. However they died wipe the graffito so you never know.

[David Orsam]

I was referring to this part of your dialogue:
Inspector: Did you mention this to the coroner?
Mizen: Yes, sir.
Inspector: So why are you telling me?

I'm sorry, but I think that's plain silly. The police would investigate whatever they thought worth investigating, whether it had been mentioned in the coroner's court or not. Obviously the police investigation didn't stop after the inquest was complete.

And you do continually harp on about the coroner, as though the inquest was the be all and end all of the police investigation. You said of Mizen "He has already informed his superiors, via his inquest testimony.".......
The coroner actually had quite a limited role. The main objective of the police investigation was to detect the killer, not just to provide the coroner with evidence.

You've missed the point. My fictional Inspector asks Mizen if he told the coroner what Cross said because he is asking if Abberline already knows what Mizen is now telling him. That being so, he cannot understand why Mizen is asking him to go and tell Abberline what he already knows.

For the record, I have never said that the police would not investigate whatever they thought investigating whether it had been mentioned in the coroner's court or not. I have never said that the police investigation stopped after the coroner's inquiry was complete. I have never said that the inquest would be the be all and end all of the police investigation. I know what the role of the coroner was.

I don't know whether I "continually harp on about the coroner" or not but your original accusation was that I "keep harping on the idea that the police wouldn't have investigated further because the coroner had been told" which was simply wrong.