Originally posted by Chris
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lets get Lechmere off the hook!
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Cogidubnus View PostHi 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
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostAll of them that say that PC Neil discovered the body. Two of which are cited in bold in #477.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostNo 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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostWhat 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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chris View PostHow 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?
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cogidubnus View PostFrom where, ultimately, did the Inspectors get the detailed information about the early stages, to which they referred in their Special Reports?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostI genuinely don't understand what the problem is Chris.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostNo, 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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Orsam View PostTo 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.Originally posted by David Orsam View PostOnce 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.
Comment
-
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?
MikeLast edited by The Good Michael; 12-03-2014, 05:35 AM.huh?
Comment
Comment