Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[David Orsam]

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?

No he wouldn't because he evidently believed that policeman to have been PC Neil - who was in Bucks Row when he arrived - and to the extent that it was of any significance would have been in Neil's report. As to that, I fail to see how Mizen could have thought that this so-called "material fact" would have helped solve the murder.

[David Orsam]

Hi David



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

He can put what he likes in his notebook but how does that information get into the head of Abberline?

[Cogidubnus]

From where, ultimately, did the Inspectors get the detailed information about the early stages, to which they referred in their Special Reports?

[Chris]

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

What I am trying to understand is this:
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.

You now refer me to reports that Neil discovered the body.

If David won't explain what he is trying to say, can anyone?

[Chris]

No he wouldn't because he evidently believed that policeman to have been PC Neil - who was in Bucks Row when he arrived - and to the extent that it was of any significance would have been in Neil's report. As to that, I fail to see how Mizen could have thought that this so-called "material fact" would have helped solve the murder.

How do you know that Mizen "evidently believed that policeman to have been PC Neil"? How do you know what Mizen believed, or what Mizen was told?

Do you mean that you are assuming Lechmere was lying, and constructing a hypothesis consistent with that? If so, wouldn't it be better to adopt a more objective approach?

[David Orsam]

What I am trying to understand is this:
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.

You now refer me to reports that Neil discovered the body.

If David won't explain what he is trying to say, can anyone?

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is Chris. From the evening of 31 August until the morning of 3 September, the newspapers (clearly based on police sources, otherwise how would they have known?) reported that PC Neil discovered the body. But the evidence at the inquest during the morning of 3 September proved this to be wrong. It was Cross who discovered the body. Neil only thought he had discovered it. My point was that this shows that at least until Sunday 2 September the police believed that PC Neil had discovered the body. Had the police/press known it was Cross they would have said that it was Cross who discovered the body. Now Robert was trying to make what was in my opinion a very silly point by saying "ah well, when the newspapers said that Neil discovered the body they didn't mean that he was the first to discover it, they just meant that he discovered it because by seeing it unattended he sort of discovered it (or at least he thought he had done)". So the point he seems to be making is that while the police knew that a carman had actually been the first to discover the body they were happy for the press to report that Neil had discovered it on the basis that while he was the first to discover it he did not discover it. Okay, perhaps I can see why you are confused but it's not because of me, it's because of the strange point being made against me.

[David Orsam]

How do you know that Mizen "evidently believed that policeman to have been PC Neil"? How do you know what Mizen believed, or what Mizen was told?

Do you mean that you are assuming Lechmere was lying, and constructing a hypothesis consistent with that? If so, wouldn't it be better to adopt a more objective approach?

No, it's obvious. Mizen has given evidence at a formal inquiry that he was told by Cross that a policeman needed him at Bucks Row and, unless he thought Cross was lying to him (which he didn't), he believed what he was being told. When he arrived at Bucks Row a couple of minutes (or so) later he saw PC Neil alone on the scene and was instructed by him to fetch an ambulance. So it simply must have been obvious to him that PC Neil had found the body and asked Cross to pass on the message to him to get to Bucks Row. When you ask me how I know what Mizen was told, this is based directly on his testimony at the inquest when he said that he was told by Cross, "You are wanted in Buck’s row by a policeman. A woman is lying there". So I know exactly what Mizen was told (or at least what he says he was told) direct from his own lips!

Of course, he might have misunderstood what Cross said but the point is that he believed that Cross had been requested to summon him by another policeman. So, no, my point does not mean that Cross must have lied. The only question is: what was in Mizen's mind at the time and he has told us.

[David Orsam]

From where, ultimately, did the Inspectors get the detailed information about the early stages, to which they referred in their Special Reports?

Certainly not from Mizen whom Inspector Spratling (the author of the first special report on 31 August) referred to as "Smizen" but if I am wrong about that then Mizen either did not mention (in his notebook) the two carmen because it did not feature in Spratling's report or Spratling did not think it of any significance to mention (presumably because Mizen did not include, or report, his conversation with Cross about the policeman being on scene). Either way it wasn't viewed as of any importance. However, I believe that Spratling's report was based solely on a report (whether written or oral) from PC Neil. The second special report is dated 7 Sept, i.e. after Mizen had testified at the coroner's inquiry, so only one special report is of any relevance to the Nichols case.

[Chris]

I genuinely don't understand what the problem is Chris.

The problem is that I can't understand why you said "So the police were happily telling the newspapers that Neil was the second person to discover the body (excluding Paul)", if they were in fact telling the newspapers that Neil was the first person to discover the body.

[Chris]

No, it's obvious. Mizen has given evidence at a formal inquiry that he was told by Cross that a policeman needed him at Bucks Row and, unless he thought Cross was lying to him (which he didn't), he believed what he was being told.

So you are assuming that Mizen was telling the truth? Surely you understand that it has been suggested he wasn't?

[David Orsam]

Spratling's Report to the Assistant Commissioner

I think that a lot of people on here have entirely missed the significance of the report by Inspector Spratling on 31 August 1888.

The fact of the matter is this. Inspector Spratling's written report of 31 August contained an account of the discovery of the body which stated that the body was discovered by PC Neil. Full stop. It did not mention - because Spratling clearly did not know - that a carman had, in fact, discovered the body. Once Inspector Spratling had sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner that was it for the police with regard to events surrounding the discovery of the body. I am confident that any of the police experts on the board will confirm this. In other words, they didn't send such a report to the AC before they thought they had established all the facts and once they had done so they were not going to continue to investigate the facts surrounding the discovery of the body. That was done. Over. Finished. They were on to the murder investigation, speaking to local residents, chasing suspects, hunting the murderer. They were not, repeat not, going to be speaking to either Mizen or Thain about the events surrounding the discovery of the body. That was all sorted. The Assistant Commissioner had been informed. The report had been filed. Finito. Am I making myself clear? Spratling had obviously received a report from PC Neil regarding his account of the discovery of the body at 3:45am and that included all the information the inspector needed to know about the discovery of the body, which Spratling included in his report to the AC. Neil had found it and had then been assisted by Mizen and Thain. That was the full story. There was no more to tell as far as the police was concerned. They were not expecting to be conducting further enquiries so as to write again to the AC saying, "ooops, sorry that special report was all wrong".

Anyone who thinks - as at least one person seems to - that after Spratling sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner on the Friday he thought to himself "Actually, you know, I'd better find out what Mizen has to say about all this", does not understand police procedures. And Mizen himself had nothing to say in any case. Based on what Cross had told him - or what he assumed, if you prefer - PC Neil had found the body and simply asked a couple of members of the public to locate another constable for assistance. So PC Neil's report to his superiors would contain everything that Spratling and the AC (and Abberline) could possibly need to know.

Hopefully that ends this entire discussion.

[Robert]

I'm afraid it doesn't, David, for as you pointed out, we don't know when on the Friday that report was sent. And the notion that the police would not have asked the nearby constables whether they'd seen a man heading from Buck's Row, or a man and a woman heading towards Buck's Row, is absurd.

[Chris]

To clarify their confusion, they would have attempted to establish who discovered the body.
... They would have wanted to establish who found the body.
... What was on the agenda was establishing who found the body.

Once Inspector Spratling had sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner that was it for the police with regard to events surrounding the discovery of the body. I am confident that any of the police experts on the board will confirm this.

This is very confusing. Have you changed your mind, or what?

[Rob Clack]

Who said Spratling sent his report to the Assistant Commissioner?

[The Good Michael]

Allow me to consolidate:

David's points:

1. Cross told Mizen he was wanted in Bucks's Row by a policeman.
2. O'Neill came upon the body without prior knowledge of it.
3. Mizen came upon O'Neill and assumed it was he who had sent for him.
4. It was assumed by O'Neill that he had first discovered the body and this is what he told his superiors.
5. This is what the early papers suggest
6. The story changed after Paul's newspaper story
7. No one saw anything strange about what O'Neill reported and what Paul said.

What David is inferring:

1. Mizen said nothing to O'Neill, but just came in and supported him, not telling him that some men fetched him.
2. No questions were asked by any higher officials because they knew no different than what O'Neill and Mizen told them. They didn't put the stories together because there was only O'Neill and Mizen's stories and they corroborated because nothing extra was said regarding Paul and Cross.
3. The difference in stories only came out during the inquest.
4. After the inquest, there was no sorting out of the discrepancies.

Is that right?

Mike