Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

In fact, Mizen would already have informed his superiors what happened directly, not "via his inquest testimony" at all.

We don't have any record or knowledge as to what Mizen informed his superiors prior to the inquest so that is pure speculation. I repeat the point that Mizen's inquest testimony was heard directly by Abberline. Not only that, but it was tested by the coroner and by the jury under direct questioning. It also forms part of the official record. That is why it is so important.

[Chris]

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.

If that's what your fictional inspector was asking, then that's what your fictional inspector should have said.

As for your dismissing as "pure speculation" the idea that a police officer would tell his superiors what had happened on the night of a murder, I can't believe you're serious.

[David Orsam]

If that's what your fictional inspector was asking, then that's what your fictional inspector should have said.

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.

I thought that was pretty clear - my fictional Mizen understood it!

[David Orsam]

As for your dismissing as "pure speculation" the idea that a police officer would tell his superiors what had happened on the night of a murder, I can't believe you're serious.

It's clear that at least some of Mizen's evidence only emerged from questioning by the coroner and the jury. What I am saying is that we do not know what Mizen said to his superiors before the inquest - whereas we do know what he said at the inquest - and that is a fact. There's no point in opening up a new speculative discussion. Frankly, it's irrelevant to the point I was making which started this chain of posts which, I will remind you, was that there was nothing further Mizen could properly say to anyone after he had given his evidence at the inquiry that would have assisted Scotland Yard's investigation. He knew nothing more. He could say nothing more.

[Chris]

I thought that was pretty clear - my fictional Mizen understood it!

Actually, there is a separate section of Casebook for "Creative Writing and Expression", if fiction is what you're interested in:

http://forum.casebook.org/forumdisplay.php?f=11

[Chris]

Frankly, it's irrelevant to the point I was making which started this chain of posts which, I will remind you, was that there was nothing further Mizen could properly say to anyone after he had given his evidence at the inquiry that would have assisted Scotland Yard's investigation.

You seemed to be arguing against the idea that the police would have been well aware of these issues before the inquest. If not, all well and good.

[David Orsam]

You seemed to be arguing against the idea that the police would have been well aware of these issues before the inquest. If not, all well and good.

You are now switching from Mizen's superiors over to "the police" and referring vaguely to "these issues". His superiors in H Division to whom he either spoke or reported were not investigating the murder and would not have had access to Cross, while Neil was in J Division. There were a number of policeman in the area of the crime scene that night. The period following the murder was one of confusion as to who actually found the body, with Mizen (apparently) thinking he had been summoned by Neil via Cross/Paul. We don't even know when Cross came forward, it might have been on the very day he gave evidence at the inquest on the Sunday. His evidence that he said nothing to Mizen about a policeman was only extracted from him by a member of the jury. You seem to think there was a controlling brain within the police that knew everything and put everything together immediately. It was a rapidly developing situation. That being said, no it doesn't make any difference to any of the points I am making as to what happened before the inquest because I was responding to a claim that Mizen could have done something after he gave his evidence - the point being made by another poster was that it was then that he knew that Cross was denying having said anything to him about a policemen (i.e. following Cross' evidence at the inquest).

[Chris]

David

Ok. You seem to be saying the situation was so confused that the police wouldn't have been able to ascertain the essential facts.

I think that's a lot of tripe. Sorry.

[David Orsam]

David

Ok. You seem to be saying the situation was so confused that the police wouldn't have been able to ascertain the essential facts.

If you think that the exact wording of the brief exchange between one of the two carmen who found the body and the constable who was third on the scene was regarded in some way by Scotland Yard in the period 31 Aug-3 Sept as an "essential fact" then perhaps it is time to agree to disagree.

[Chris]

David

Let's put it like this.

If Mizen reported that he had been told by a member of the public that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, and if Neil reported that he had found the body and had not seen any members of the public there, the contradiction would have been evident to the police from the outset.

Otherwise the contradiction would have been evident to the police later on.

Either way, the contradiction would have been evident to the police.

[David Orsam]

If Mizen reported that he had been told by a member of the public that a policeman wanted him in Buck's Row, and if Neil reported that he had found the body and had not seen any members of the public there, the contradiction would have been evident to the police from the outset.

Aside from containing the word "if" twice, that sentence is logically flawed: "a policeman" has transformed magically into "Neil". It is an example of how the perfect knowledge we have now is being incorporated into your thinking.

[Chris]

Aside from containing the word "if" twice, that sentence is logically flawed: "a policeman" has transformed magically into "Neil".

You're seriously suggesting the police would have assumed there wasn't a problem, because there might have been a further unidentified officer in Buck's Row?

Congratulations, you're a fully fledged Lechmerian now!

[David Orsam]

You're seriously suggesting the police would have assumed there wasn't a problem, because there might have been a further unidentified officer in Buck's Row?

Not unidentified at all. There was a further officer in Buck's Row. PC Thain was second on the scene and was then sent to fetch a doctor. On his way, he could easily have asked a member of the public (Cross) who had already seen the body to summon the next constable he saw to Buck's Row. Events can be confusing. If you want to see how ignorant of what you call the "essential facts" the police were during the afternoon after the murder, just take a look at Inspector Spratling's report of 31 August 1888, written after he had carried out his search of the area (which he said was done between 11 and 12). He refers to a "PC Smizen" having assisted Neil and clearly has no idea that "Smizen" had spoken to anyone at all because the carmen are not mentioned in the report. On the contrary, at that stage, he evidently believed that Neil was the first to find the body. So much for the police having a supreme grasp of the "essential facts".

[Chris]

David

The fact remains that, as I said, the police would have become aware of the contradiction at some point. If you want to assume they disgregarded it, go ahead.

And I award you a Lechmerian gold star for your ingenuity in coming up with that idea about Thain.

[David Orsam]

David

The fact remains that, as I said, the police would have become aware of the contradiction at some point. If you want to assume they disgregarded it, go ahead.

And I award you a Lechmerian gold star for your ingenuity in coming up with that idea about Thain.

I have said consistently throughout this thread that there are always contradictions in witness evidence and they are frequently unresolved. Witness A says one thing, witness B says another. It's not a contradiction itself that sets off alarm bells. It all depends on how significant or important that contradiction is believed to be as to whether any action is taken as a result.

Thanks for the gold star - the funny thing is that the only reason we know today that Thain did not ask Cross to summon a constable is because Cross told the coroner that there was no policeman in Buck's Row. Naturally Thain was not asked about it at the inquest but absent Cross's evidence, we wouldn't know for sure. Thain even says that shortly before he was called by Constable Neil "he saw one or two men" (admittedly going in the direction of Whitechapel). If we only had Mizen's account we might today be arguing whether this was Cross and Paul!