Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Chris]

But I would submit that what the above shows is that the police were initially confused as to who first found the body and that it was this that they would have been attempting to resolve on Sunday, or early Monday at the latest. The issue of who said what to who was, I would also submit, not even on the agenda and, as we know, it was only a question from a jury member that extracted a denial from Cross that he had said anything to Mizen about a policeman.

Don't you think that if the police were trying to clarify their confusion they would have tried to obtain as full and accurate reports as possible of what had happened from the officers involved? Wouldn't they have wanted all the information they could get about these carmen who were talking to the press? I'd have thought the last thing they'd have done would be to leave things "off the agenda".

[David Orsam]

Don't you think that if the police were trying to clarify their confusion they would have tried to obtain as full and accurate reports as possible of what had happened from the officers involved? ".

To clarify their confusion, they would have attempted to establish who discovered the body.

Wouldn't they have wanted all the information they could get about these carmen who were talking to the press? ".

(one carman was talking to the press). They would have wanted to establish who found the body.

I'd have thought the last thing they'd have done would be to leave things "off the agenda".

It's not a question of consciously leaving something off the agenda, it's more of what was on the agenda. What was on the agenda was establishing who found the body.

[Patrick S]

Let's get 'John Smith' off the hook! I'm certain there was a man (or 50) named 'John Smith' living in or around the East End at the time of the murders. Therefore, we must prove he was NOT the killer in order to get him 'off the hook'. So, unless you can prove otherwise, I'm going to believe that Jack the Ripper was 'John Smith'.

This can work with anyone, really. It's fun because - 130 years after the fact - you can say pretty much whatever you want and someone out there will believe it.

[Bridewell]

29 (not 25 sorry) isn't public space.
There must be stable yards and alleys and hidden corners all over the place. But in this instance they entered a house, walked through the house, past the stairs and out of the back door into the private yard . Its a bizarre location to murder someone. There is only one way in and out.

True, but it can be argued both ways:- there is only one obvious escape route but, by the same token, there is only one avenue of approach for any threat. I wonder if there was ever an external bolt on that door?

[Robert]

Hi David

To me, it's obvious that they would have spoken to Mizen, and on the Friday. But even if you think they were too confused to carry out this simple piece of detective work, do you not think that in addition to identifying the deceased, and ascertaining who found her, the police would have had a more than passing interest in which way the murderer had gone? Constables on nearby beats would have been asked if they'd seen anyone suspicious go by for the relevant time period. When that happened, Mizen would have mentioned the two men.

The idea that the police would have asked residents whether they'd seen or heard anything, but failed to ask one of their own constables the same question, or that if they did fail to ask the question, the constable concerned would keep quiet on a 'speak when you're spoken to' basis, is absurd.

The reports you quote saying that PC Neil discovered the body are true. They don't say that he was the first to discover it, simply that he did discover it. I don't know whether you expected the police to make an appeal via the Press for the two men to come forward. I think it would have been rather early days for that.

[David Orsam]

To me, it's obvious that they would have spoken to Mizen, and on the Friday.

I don't see how you can say this in the face of Spratling's report on the Friday.

But even if you think they were too confused to carry out this simple piece of detective work, do you not think that in addition to identifying the deceased, and ascertaining who found her, the police would have had a more than passing interest in which way the murderer had gone? Constables on nearby beats would have been asked if they'd seen anyone suspicious go by for the relevant time period. When that happened, Mizen would have mentioned the two men.

If any officer had seen a suspicious character that night they would have come forward. They wouldn't have all needed to have been individually questioned.

The reports you quote saying that PC Neil discovered the body are true. They don't say that he was the first to discover it, simply that he did discover it.

So the police were happily telling the newspapers that Neil was the second person to discover the body (excluding Paul) but decided not to mention that someone else had discovered it earlier? Please.

[Chris]

David

Do you mean they wouldn't have tried to obtain as full and accurate reports as possible of what had happened from the officers involved?

That they wouldn't they have wanted all the information they could get about these carmen? (OK - you get another Lechmerian gold star for pointing out that only one of them was talking to the press.)

Perhaps you could advance the discussion by explaining why you think that (if you think it).

[Chris]

So the police were happily telling the newspapers that Neil was the second person to discover the body (excluding Paul) but decided not to mention that someone else had discovered it earlier? Please.

I don't quite follow that. Please could you expand?

[David Orsam]

David

Do you mean they wouldn't have tried to obtain as full and accurate reports as possible of what had happened from the officers involved?

That they wouldn't they have wanted all the information they could get about these carmen? (OK - you get another Lechmerian gold star for pointing out that only one of them was talking to the press.)

Perhaps you could advance the discussion by explaining why you think that (if you think it).

I will try and advance the discussion by saying what the police would have focussed on. The police would have wanted to establish who found the body. Then they would have wanted to know when and in what circumstances this occurred. Then their report would have gone like this: Carman A found body at 3.40am, notified Carman B who was walking down street, two men examined body, looked possibly dead, decided to notify constable, found constable and notified him of dead body, carmen went off to work, constable went to Bucks Row. THAT was the important information. No reason to suspect the carmen of anything as they had quite properly sought out a constable. No reason to ask about the exact words spoken by Cross to Mizen. No reason to carry out any further investigations. Evidence to be given at Coroner's inquiry and witness accounts tested on oath.

[David Orsam]

I don't quite follow that. Please could you expand?

The short point is that for you to claim that Neil did in fact discover the body is quite silly.

[Robert]

"I don't see how you can say this in the face of Spratling's report on the Friday."

You've just said that we don't know when on the Friday it was sent.


"If any officer had seen a suspicious character that night they would have come forward."

Whereas an officer who was told about the body by a passer-by, thought it not worth mentioning?

The short point is that for you to claim that Neil did in fact discover the body is quite silly.

But Neil did discover the body. No reference is made in those quotes to whether Neil was the first, second or 2000th man to find the body. What would you have Neil say - that he never discovered a body?

[Chris]

The short point is that for you to claim that Neil did in fact discover the body is quite silly.

Where did I claim that Neil discovered the body?

What I hoped you would explain was your rather cryptic statement:
So the police were happily telling the newspapers that Neil was the second person to discover the body (excluding Paul) but decided not to mention that someone else had discovered it earlier? Please.

Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to.

[Chris]

I will try and advance the discussion by saying what the police would have focussed on. The police would have wanted to establish who found the body. Then they would have wanted to know when and in what circumstances this occurred. Then their report would have gone like this: Carman A found body at 3.40am, notified Carman B who was walking down street, two men examined body, looked possibly dead, decided to notify constable, found constable and notified him of dead body, carmen went off to work, constable went to Bucks Row. THAT was the important information. No reason to suspect the carmen of anything as they had quite properly sought out a constable. No reason to ask about the exact words spoken by Cross to Mizen. No reason to carry out any further investigations. Evidence to be given at Coroner's inquiry and witness accounts tested on oath.

As I said, I was hoping you could explain why you were suggesting the police wouldn't have wanted their information to be as full as possible. It's all very well for you to keep saying they wouldn't have wanted to know what was actually said, but I wish I could understand why you think that.

Frankly I think you're quite wrong to imagine yourself into the head of a policeman 126 years ago and tell us he wouldn't have been interested in anything except what you imagine he would have been interested in.

[David Orsam]

You've just said that we don't know when on the Friday it was sent.

It stands to reason that Spratling would send a report to the Assistant Commissioner before doing the simple but, in your world extremely important, thing of getting Mizen's account.

Whereas an officer who was told about the body by a passer-by, thought it not worth mentioning?

This point started with you telling me "do you not think that in addition to identifying the deceased, and ascertaining who found her, the police would have had a more than passing interest in which way the murderer had gone?" and then suggesting that the constables in the area would have been questioned by the investigating officers. In other words, it was a point about what the police would have done. Now we are back to what Mizen would have done. We've already been over that ground.

But Neil did discover the body. No reference is made in those quotes to whether Neil was the first, second or 2000th man to find the body. What would you have Neil say - that he never discovered a body?

The fact is that Neil did not discover the body (although he thought he did); Cross discovered the body - and for you to suggest that the police would have informed the press that Neil discovered the body when they knew it was discovered by Cross (or an unknown carman) is, to use your favourite word, absurd.

[David Orsam]

Where did I claim that Neil discovered the body?

What I hoped you would explain was your rather cryptic statement:
So the police were happily telling the newspapers that Neil was the second person to discover the body (excluding Paul) but decided not to mention that someone else had discovered it earlier? Please.

Of course, you don't have to if you don't want to.

Apologies, I was replying to Robert who said: "The reports you quote saying that PC Neil discovered the body are true". You then responded to my response to this. My statement is self-explanatory.