Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

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

In an ideal world maybe - but in the real world witnesses forget to mention things, or don't mention everything they have seen. So there is frequently ambiguity which may need clarification.

[Chris]

In an ideal world maybe - but in the real world witnesses forget to mention things, or don't mention everything they have seen. So there is frequently ambiguity which may need clarification.

What I'm saying is that if Cross/Lechmere's statement hadn't mentioned a policeman in Buck's Row, and Mizen had reported that Cross/Lechmere had told him there was a policeman in Buck's Row, then there would have been a discrepancy there which the police would have wanted to clarify.

And of course there would be Neil's report that he discovered the body in Buck's Row and that there were no members of the public present.

[Robert]

I think that the Coroner's question about whether he'd seen Neil, was substantially the same as the question about what he had said to Mizen. I think the Coroner spotted an inconsistency between Neil's testimony that he'd seen no one and Mizen's testimony that Crossmere told him that a policeman wanted him. I think very probably Crossmere was asked about this at the time he went to the police station.

I think the Coroner felt he had to get to the bottom of it and to draw the jury's attention to it. Having done that, the Coroner didn't feel that he had to ask Crossmere what he'd told Mizen, because he would hardly have supposed that having said that he hadn't seen Neil, Crossmere would say that he'd told Mizen that Neil wanted him! However a jury member seems to have felt the need to make sure.

[David Orsam]

Chris, imagine we had no surviving reports of the inquest and I wrote this post:

"What I'm saying is that if Cross/Lechmere's evidence hadn't mentioned a policeman in Buck's Row, and Mizen had reported that Cross/Lechmere had told him there was a policeman in Buck's Row, then there would have been a discrepancy there which the coroner's inquiry would have wanted to clarify."

But the coroner didn't clarify it. Go figure. That's the real world for you.

[Chris]

Chris, imagine we had no surviving reports of the inquest and I wrote this post:

"What I'm saying is that if Cross/Lechmere's evidence hadn't mentioned a policeman in Buck's Row, and Mizen had reported that Cross/Lechmere had told him there was a policeman in Buck's Row, then there would have been a discrepancy there which the coroner's inquiry would have wanted to clarify."

But the coroner didn't clarify it. Go figure. That's the real world for you.

I think you should accept that not everyone is going to agree with your opinion.

[FrankO]

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.

He had 2 opportunities to do something before his inquest appearance, David.

[David Orsam]

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?

I'm fairly sure he wasn't allowed to talk to the press. I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to speak to his superiors but there was just no point. He has given his evidence to the coroner. Detective-inspector Abberline, Inspector Helson and others were watching the inquest on behalf of the CID. What he thinks about anything - or thinks he knows - is utterly irrelevant. His superiors already know what he knows because he has told the coroner. As I've previously mentioned, he left the witness box before Cross gave evidence. Anything else he "knows" comes from the newspapers. It simply was not his place to get involved in Scotland Yard's investigation.

[FrankO]

I'm fairly sure he wasn't allowed to talk to the press. I'm not saying he wasn't allowed to speak to his superiors but there was just no point.

If Mizen had no doubts whatsoever about what he'd been told by Cross and he knew for a fact that the man who had found the body had lied to him, what police officer would he have been to not at least tell his superiors? Certainly if he believed he would be regarded as a liar or worse. There would be every reason for him to set the record straight. I'm fairly sure his superiors or the CID would not have found it utterly irrelevant.

[David Orsam]

If Mizen had no doubts whatsoever about what he'd been told by Cross and he knew for a fact that the man who had found the body had lied to him, what police officer would he have been to not at least tell his superiors? Certainly if he believed he would be regarded as a liar or worse. There would be every reason for him to set the record straight. I'm fairly sure his superiors or the CID would not have found it utterly irrelevant.

Well I'll say it one more time. He has already informed his superiors, via his inquest testimony, that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman. He can say no more than this. He knows no more than this. This is 1888. There is a rigid structure of rank. He has given his evidence and done his duty. He is now back at work, patrolling the streets.

[Chris]

Well I'll say it one more time. He has already informed his superiors, via his inquest testimony, that Cross told him he was wanted by a policeman. He can say no more than this. He knows no more than this. This is 1888. There is a rigid structure of rank. He has given his evidence and done his duty. He is now back at work, patrolling the streets.

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. And of course, he may have been able to tell them all kinds of things that hadn't even been mentioned at the inquest.

[Sally]

Misunderstanding.

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.

[Robert]

Well it might be what happened, Sally. The Lechmerians counter that Crossmere wasn't really accompanied by Paul when he spoke to Mizen, because, they say, Paul had gone off down Hanbury St. And they say that Mizen was far too highly graded a chap to have been capable of misunderstanding anything.

[FrankO]

Well I'll say it one more time.

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.

[GUT]

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.

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.

[Sally]

Well it might be what happened, Sally. The Lechmerians counter that Crossmere wasn't really accompanied by Paul when he spoke to Mizen, because, they say, Paul had gone off down Hanbury St. And they say that Mizen was far too highly graded a chap to have been capable of misunderstanding anything.

Mizen's been graded? Like an egg?

In the grading process, policemen are examined for both interior and exterior quality before they’re sorted according to weight (size). Grade quality and weight (size) are not related to one another. Policemens of any quality grade may differ in weight (size). In descending order of quality, grades are designated AA, A and B...

All policeman must be clean to pass grading requirements, but a small amount of staining is permitted in Grade B.

Hmm...