Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

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.

I think the difference between us is that - based partly on my own knowledge of Metropolitan Police files from the pre-first world war era (but not claiming to be an expert) - I am attempting to describe a real world, fast moving, police investigation in the late nineteenth century, by a relatively small team of officers with limited resources, where facts and events are confusing, often involving discrepancies in witness accounts, in circumstances were police officers do not have 20/20 vision or hindsight, where real people get tired, make mistakes, miss things, fail to understand things, chase false leads and hunt almost in the dark for clues while being under great pressure to produce results. It's a world where they have to focus on the important things, the priorities and cannot do absolutely everything and understand everything and see everything and know everything.

You on the other hand, seem to envisage a perfect investigation in a perfect world.

[Chris]

You on the other hand, seem to envisage a perfect investigation in a perfect world.

Do I, indeed?

[Chris]

My statement is self-explanatory.

Well, I don't understand it, and I've asked you twice (politely) to explain what it means.

If you don't want to, I can't make you. But I think you may be missing something rather important about the nature of discussion.

[David Orsam]

Well, I don't understand it, and I've asked you twice (politely) to explain what it means.

If you don't want to, I can't make you. But I think you may be missing something rather important about the nature of discussion.

You seriously need an explanation?

Well okay, I'm always happy to help.

Robert said to me (#485): "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 responded (#486):

"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?"

By which I meant to ask Robert if he thought that 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.

I then followed this by saying "Please" which could also have been written as "Purleease!".

Another way of putting it, as I attempted to do earlier (#490), is by saying that the claim that Neil did in fact discover the body is quite silly.

[David Orsam]

Do I, indeed?

Yes, I think so, and you seem to believe that the police always knew all the questions to ask and who they should be asking (not appreciating that WE know all the questions they should have asked but it wasn't so clear at the time).

[Chris]

You seriously need an explanation?
...
By which I meant to ask Robert if he thought that 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.

Thank you, but I'm still not quite sure I understand. Perhaps you could specify which newspaper reports you're referring to.

[Chris]

Yes, I think so, and you seem to believe that the police always knew all the questions to ask and who they should be asking (not appreciating that WE know all the questions they should have asked but it wasn't so clear at the time).

It's not really a matter of knowing the right questions to ask, though, is it?

All that's required is for the officers concerned to give a full and accurate account of what happened. I was under the impression that that was the system they worked to. But of course, if they proceeded on your system - by thinking of one particular question that they thought at the time was the most important one to be answered, and ignoring all other information, things would have been very different.

[Robert]

David, Mizen saw and spoke to two men who were coming from a murder scene. If you think that Mizen would have waited three days to mention that, then I can't help you.

[David Orsam]

All that's required is for the officers concerned to give a full and accurate account of what happened.

You keep saying "full and accurate" as if that has any meaning. If he'd wanted to, Mizen could probably have written a book about everything he'd seen and done that evening, down to the colour of Paul's eyes and the cut of Cross's hair. Title: "A Night on the Beat In Whitechapel". In reality, he would have reported what he believed to be the material facts. Namely he was told by two members of the public that there was a body in Bucks Row and he went and assisted PC Neil who was already there. On that simple account he would not have been expecting the Spanish Inquisition, but then no-one ever does.

[David Orsam]

Thank you, but I'm still not quite sure I understand. Perhaps you could specify which newspaper reports you're referring to.

Read my post #477.

[Chris]

Read my post #477.

I'm just asking which reports you're referring to.

[David Orsam]

Mizen saw and spoke to two men who were coming from a murder scene. If you think that Mizen would have waited three days to mention that, then I can't help you.

You have overlooked the most important aspect of all this. In Mizen's mind, PC Neil discovered the body and then asked two members of the public to summon another officer - i.e. Mizen - for assistance (e.g. to fetch an ambulance, which was Mizen's job). So there was nothing for Mizen to report about these men. For Mizen, anything relevant about them would be in PC Neil's report which was, of course, included in Spratling's report to the AC. For the police, it is job done as to events surrounding the discovery of the body and for the investigating officers there is nothing more to do (until they read in the newspapers that things were not as they thought)

[Chris]

In reality, he would have reported what he believed to be the material facts.

And you believe Mizen wouldn't have considered a statement that there was a policeman in Buck's Row who wanted him to be a "material fact."

But why do you think he wouldn't?

[David Orsam]

I'm just asking which reports you're referring to.

All of them that say that PC Neil discovered the body. Two of which are cited in bold in #477.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi David

So there was nothing for Mizen to report about these men. For Mizen, anything relevant about them would be in PC Neil's report which was, of course, included in Spratling's report to the AC. For the police, it is job done as to events surrounding the discovery of the body and for the investigating officers there is nothing more to do (until they read in the newspapers that things were not as they thought)

With respect I think you may misunderstand the precise reason for a Policeman's notebook...Mizen's in particular...I'd gladly recommend Neil's book...

All the best

Dave