Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Chris]

The Met took statements from witnesses. The City apparently didnt

Why do you think that? Certainly there's a reference in the Times to John Kelly giving the police a statement:
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881003.html

[Chris]

Didn't MacDonald have copies of the statements at the Mary Kelly? At least of those who were appearing?

I don't know. I'd be interested if you could point me towards a reference to his having copies of statements.

[Rob Clack]

I don't know. I'd be interested if you could point me towards a reference to his having copies of statements.

The ones I am thinking about are with the Inquest papers. And first published in Knights book. I can't believe the Met Police would hand over the original statements and so gave Macdonald copies.

Rob

[Dave O]

The ones I am thinking about are with the Inquest papers. And first published in Knights book. I can't believe the Met Police would hand over the original statements and so gave Macdonald copies.

Rob

Hi Chris and Rob,

Yes, they're with the inquest papers. I agree with Rob that they're surely copies as Macdonald not only kept them, he also wrote on them.

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you think that? Certainly there's a reference in the Times to John Kelly giving the police a statement:
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881003.html

Chris
I have nothing in writing to support this, however when we were discussing the inquest testimony relating to the Eddowes inquest somewhere it became apparent that the first time the witnesses gave their statements was at the inquest. So that might have been City Police procedure in conjunction with the coroner.

On another general note with regards to police officers and their recording of incidents. As is known they are issued with pocket note books. They are supposed to record the events at the time or as soon as practicable after the event. Where one or more officers are involved in the same incident they allowed to confer to ensure the facts are reported correctly.

In criminal trials if an officer wishes to refer to his notebook he will be asked when the notes were made. If they were made outside of what is deemed to be a reasonable time to ensure accuracy he may not be permitted to refer to them.

I doubt this would apply at a coroners court here the rules of evidence are different.

When we look at the ambiguities with regards to these police officers. It looks as if they may have written their notes without conferring. Now it only need one officer to record the events wrongly and bingo we have the issues now being discussed.

How could that happen? Well that's easy to explain. One of those officers was perhaps not where he was supposed to be, or was doing something he was not supposed to be doing. He is not obviously going to put that in writing, he is going to cover his back. Now initially, that's all well and good but of course, at the time of writing he is not aware of what others are going to say which may subsequently show him to be lying.

It would seem that some policemen thought that the role of being a `knocker up` was more important than the job they were getting paid to do.


www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Trevor Marriott]

The ones I am thinking about are with the Inquest papers. And first published in Knights book. I can't believe the Met Police would hand over the original statements and so gave Macdonald copies.

Rob

They didn't have photo copiers then !


www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[Sally]

They didn't have photo copiers then !


www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

Not quite, no - but they did have carbonic paper, at the very least - and clerks who could write copy documents as and when required.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not quite, no - but they did have carbonic paper, at the very least - and clerks who could write copy documents as and when required.

Where is your sense of humour ?

[Chris]

Yes, they're with the inquest papers. I agree with Rob that they're surely copies as Macdonald not only kept them, he also wrote on them.

Rob and Dave

Thanks. I should have checked the Ultimate Sourcebook. There are statements there for (I think) all the non-medical civilian witnesses.

Dave, do you know whether it was normal practice for coroners to be provided with copies of witness statements, and if so how long it continued?

[Rob Clack]

Hi Chris and Rob,

Yes, they're with the inquest papers. I agree with Rob that they're surely copies as Macdonald not only kept them, he also wrote on them.

Dave

Thanks Dave.

[Sally]

Where is your sense of humour ?

Oh, I don't have one of those, Trevor - it'd never do!

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, I don't have one of those, Trevor - it'd never do!

Team Lechmere seem to, their take on Cross keeps you laughing all day long


www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KNRE4NY

[RockySullivan]

Lechmere would likely take one route to work everyday. I don't think he would be taking a different route each night.

whoa i didnt realize there was a photo of lechmere in the documentary..is it real?

[caz]

True Lies

This could simply be a misunderstanding.

Crossmere and Paul encounter Mizen and tell him that he's wanted in Buck's Row because there's a woman lying there, dead or drunk.

Crossmere is telling Mizen that he needs to go to Buck's Row because there's a woman lying in the street, possibly dead. He isn't telling him that he's wanted by another policeman.

Mizen encounters two Carmen. One of them tells him that he's wanted in Buck's Row. Mizen assumes that he means by another policeman and tells the carmen that he'll go along. When he gets to Buck's Row, he finds what he expects to find and thinks nothing more of it.

Subsequently, in Mizen's memory, Crossmere told him that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row because that was how he interpreted what was said at the time.

Subsequently, Crossmere denied telling Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman, having simply told him that he was 'wanted'.

One eplanation in which nobody need have lied.

I think that something like this probably happened. It makes no sense for Crossmere to have told Mizen that he was wanted by another policeman in Buck's Row when he was accompanied by Paul, who knew as well as he did that it wasn't true.

Hi Sally,

I agree and have posted much the same thing myself. The clue for me is the fact that Mizen did find a policeman at the scene - something Lechmere could not have anticipated. On the contrary, in telling such a lie, he would have been fully expecting Mizen to find a brutally murdered woman in an otherwise deserted Buck's Row, and instantly realise he'd been had - almost certainly by the killer himself. As luck would have it, PC Neil's presence would have served as confirmation, at least initially, making it seem the truth and buying Lechmere more time than he could reasonably have hoped for.

Of course, if Lechmere did manage to speak to Mizen out of Paul's earshot, he could have lied without Paul being any the wiser, even though Mizen was sure to rumble him sooner or later. But there is another potential snag with this scenario. Would Paul have said all he did to the press if he had not only not spoken to Mizen himself, but also had no idea what, if anything, Lechmere had actually told the policeman? It makes little sense that this innocent witness would have volunteered a completely invented conversation that he didn't hear and took no part in.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz,

Welcome back.

This is all far too tortuous.

Cross had not encountered PC Neil who, in turn, had not encountered Cross.

Cross told the truth. PC Neil was not where he should have been on this night of nights.

It makes far more sense to believe that PC Mizen lied in order to place PC Neil where he should have been.

Did PC Mizen did find PC Neil on arriving at the murder scene? Eventually, of course.

Policemen lying under oath? Unthinkable as it is to Ripperology, newspaper letters columns were full of such stories.

Regards,

Simon