Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[FrankO]

If Mizen was certain of his recollection of events, he would have known at some point that he had been lied to.

Quite right Ben, there can be little doubt, if any, about that. From both the inquest statements of Cross and Neil it is clear that Cross & Paul weren’t sent by Neil to fetch another PC. In addition, Mizen should already have felt that something wasn’t quite right arriving at the crime scene and discovering the woman’s throat had been severely cut. Why wouldn’t the 2 men have told him the woman was dead when this was so very clearly the case? If Mizen had no doubts whatsoever about what he had been told, at least he had a number of opportunities to set the record straight, but he didn’t.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

This then makes the argument circular: Cross was telling the truth because he is innocent, therefore he didn't lie to Mizen, therefore he is innocent.

Hi David,

If I may, I don't believe this is the argument, not for me anyway. The argument is: Mizen didn’t take any action when he knew for a fact that the man who found the body had lied to a police officer, i.e. him. Therefore, goes the argument, Mizen, was either negligent or, in the end, unsure about what he’d been told. And if he wasn’t sure, then maybe Cross didn’t tell him a PC was waiting for Mizen.

All the best,
Frank

[David Orsam]

If Mizen had no doubts whatsoever about what he had been told, at least he had a number of opportunities to set the record straight, but he didn’t.

All the best,
Frank

He didn't have any opportunities to "set the record straight". Once he had given his evidence at the inquest he had no more involvement.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

If I may, I don't believe this is the argument, not for me anyway. The argument is: Mizen didn’t take any action when he knew for a fact that the man who found the body had lied to a police officer, i.e. him. Therefore, goes the argument, Mizen, was either negligent or, in the end, unsure about what he’d been told. And if he wasn’t sure, then maybe Cross didn’t tell him a PC was waiting for Mizen.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

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. What was in Mizen's mind after he testified at the inquest, and possibly read what others said in the newspapers, is neither here nor there.

[David Orsam]

No, the fact of the matter is that we don't know enough to know that a contradiction was unexplained. It is unexplained for us, but we have no idea. So, the idea that there is a contradiction is a problem, yes, but that doesn't a suspect make.

But Mike, the argument that has been put forward in this thread is that because the contradiction was apparently unresolved it must have been resolved! But I'm glad you see there is a problem. Please do the exercise I am about to set....

[David Orsam]

I've never really understood the amount of time that's spent debating whether people should be classified as suspects, persons of interest or whatever.

It reminds me a bit of Dr Johnson's saying "Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."

Chris, I do agree with you - which is why I was querying a few days ago why there is so much strong opposition on this board to Cross merely being classified as a suspect. At the same time, I think it is fair to say that there are legitimate suspects and those who not quite so legit - or to put it another way, individuals against whom there are reasonable grounds for suspicion and others where there are no such grounds. In truth, the debate is a little broader than whether Cross was a suspect or not, it is about whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he might have been involved in committing the crime. Some people appear to say there are none, which is what I have been challenging. Take the following exercise...

[David Orsam]

Exercise

It is 20 September 1888. You are an inspector in the CID. Chief Inspector Swanson personally asks you to take over the investigation into the murder of Polly Nichols. You read the inquest reports and notice the discrepancy between the evidence of PC Mizen and Charles Cross. You summon Mizen into your office and he says, "Cross told me I was wanted by a policeman". You go and speak to Cross who says, "I never told Mizen he was wanted by a policemen". Do you:

(a) Tell yourself that Mizen is probably mistaken, or there is some other innocent explanation, and focus all enquiries elsewhere, or

(b) Make Cross a person of interest to your inquiry while keeping an open mind that there might been an innocent (or alternative) explanation for the discrepancy?

I suggest that if you choose (a) then you would be negligent in your duties while if you choose (b) you basically agree with what I have been saying in this thread.

Thanks for playing.

[The Good Michael]

(a) Tell yourself that Mizen is probably mistaken, or there is some other innocent explanation, and focus all enquiries elsewhere, or

(b) Make Cross a person of interest to your inquiry while keeping an open mind that there might been an innocent (or alternative) explanation for the discrepancy?

I suggest that if you choose (a) then you would be negligent in your duties while if you choose (b) you basically agree with what I have been saying in this thread.

C. I talk to Mizen, Paul, and Cross, after the inquest and tell them it doesn't add up. If Paul and Mizen agree on what was said, the policeman misheard, and that's that. The conversation has to happen, so there is no A and B for me, but thanks for playing.

Mike

[Robert]

David, I would choose (b). Even if Paul corroborated Crossmere's story, if one of my best officers told me there was no mistake, that he could still hear the words as if it were yesterday, and he had definitely been told that he was wanted by a policeman, then I would make both Crossmere and Paul persons of interest. And even if I could not establish anything to prove their involvement in the Nichols murder, I would be checking them out for the subsequent murders. With such a spotlight on them, it is unlikely that they would have got away with anything, or at least that they would have failed to figure in further reports. The implication is that they were innocent, unless one wants to make a case for Crossmere/Paul doing the Nichols murder as a one-off.

The alternatives would be :

A misunderstanding - in which case the case against Crossmere collapses.
Mizen admitted to lying - ditto.
The police never noticed the discrepancy - which beggars belief.
Crossmere was given a free pass because he came forward - ditto.

[Chris]

It is very difficult to believe the police wouldn't have been acutely aware of the contradiction between Mizen's claim that someone had told him he was wanted by another policeman, and Neil's knowledge that he hadn't encountered anyone at the crime scene - particularly in the period before Cross/Lechmere and Paul came forward.

[c.d.]

A "person of interest" is going to be questioned. Depending on his answers he may or may not become a "suspect." The key point being that whether the police consider you a suspect or merely a person of interest your are going to get questioned (and provide an alibi if asked) either way.

c.d.

[David Orsam]

"The police never noticed the discrepancy - which beggars belief."

Thanks Robert, you added a few things into the exercise that weren't there but I'm glad you took it!

Just an observation to make on the sentence I've quoted (and Chris also makes the same point). It is interesting to consider that the evidence relating to the discrepancy was extracted from Cross by a juryman. I mean, Mizen has just given evidence that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman and a few moments later Cross is in the witness box. Does the coroner immediately ask him about what he said to Mizen? No! He asked him if he had seen PC Neil but that was a slightly different matter. You'd think the very first question everyone in that "court" room was waiting to ask Cross was what he had told Mizen about this other policeman. But it wasn't, evidently. So we are not, perhaps, looking at things the way those in the courtroom did. No doubt the discrepancy was noted (although not reported in all newspapers) but, as I've said before, there are always discrepancies between witness testimonies. The question is: did the police realise the significance of the discrepancy? There are those who say that because we hear no more about it then they obviously did and resolved it. My view is that the fact that we hear no more about it suggests precisely the opposite. They just missed the significance, or rather potential significance.

[Robert]

"It is very difficult to believe the police wouldn't have been acutely aware of the contradiction between Mizen's claim that someone had told him he was wanted by another policeman, and Neil's knowledge that he hadn't encountered anyone at the crime scene - particularly in the period before Cross/Lechmere and Paul came forward."

Yes, and ultimately the police had the signed statements of Crossmere and Paul, and the verbatim record of Crossmere's, Paul's and Mizen's inquest testimony, plus the addresses of Crossmere and Paul if more questions needed to be asked, and Mizen at the station if they wanted to ask him anything. The crucial witness statements and inquest records for all the murders must have been read and re-read many times by bleary-eyed policemen during the investigation, but we are told that not once did one of them notice anything.

[Chris]

It is interesting to consider that the evidence relating to the discrepancy was extracted from Cross by a juryman. I mean, Mizen has just given evidence that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman and a few moments later Cross is in the witness box. Does the coroner immediately ask him about what he said to Mizen? No! He asked him if he had seen PC Neil but that was a slightly different matter. You'd think the very first question everyone in that "court" room was waiting to ask Cross was what he had told Mizen about this other policeman.

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

One would hope the police had the time to examine all the information carefully, and to investigate it thoroughly. It's in the nature of things that only a fraction of the evidence can be presented in court, and no one has the opportunity to go through everything that's presented, and make a careful comparison.

[David Orsam]

The crucial witness statements and inquest records for all the murders must have been read and re-read many times by bleary-eyed policemen during the investigation, but we are told that not once did one of them notice anything.

That's just an assumption, not based on anything we know about. The official inquest records would have been held by the coroner and I don't expect police officers to have spent their days reading and re-reading the newspapers. 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.