The Lechmere trail - so far

[drstrange169]

Mizen mix up



>>You may also see how Mizen is not criticized for any breach of protocol during the inquest.<<

As it would be purely a police matter, no surprises there.

>>You may also note that Jonas Mizen was given an excellent service record when leaving the police.<<

Glad you raised what the police thought about it;-)

Fellow posters will remember I'm sure, Fish regards Swanson's report as the gold standard when it comes to collating all the latest and best information.

Swanson said,

"They informed P.C. 55H Divn. Mizen in Bakers Row, but before his arrival P.C. Neil on whose beat it was had discovered it."

That is essentially Xmere's version of events.

No mention of a dispute.

No mention of Mizen's version, which is odd given you would expect the police to look after and believe their own before strangers.

Presumably the police after questioning all three men accepted that Xmere was right and Mizen was mixed up.

Now fellow posters will also be aware that I don't accept Swanson's reports at face value. They contain errors. So rather than jumping on something I like, the way Fish does, I prefer to look for corroboration elsewhere before I accept something as being likely to be true.

In this case we can corroborate Swanson's endorsement of Xmere's version.
In Abberline's report, he says,

"... they met P.C. Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen, and on the Constable proceeding towards the spot he found that ... Neil ... had found the woman..."

Again Xmere's version is the official police version.
Again, NO mention of Mizen's claims.

Abberline had the advantage of meeting the men concerned as did Baxter and yet again they chose Xmere's version of events over Mizen's.

Baxter's official line,

"The carmen (note the plural) reported the circumstances to a constable ... although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there."

Baxter not only dismisses Mizen's claims, he seems to be saying that Mizen was surprised to find another P.C. there!

So the police (and they should know) supported Xmere.
Baxter believed Xmere.
Why then shouldn't we?

[drstrange169]

>>As for papers lying, the suggestion is not a good one - you overdramatize rather heavily.<<

It was intended as humorous not literal.

[Fisherman]

drstrange169

You may also see how Mizen is not criticized for any breach of protocol during the inquest.

As it would be purely a police matter, no surprises there.

You may also note that Jonas Mizen was given an excellent service record when leaving the police.

Glad you raised what the police thought about it;-)

Oversimplifying, Dust. We all know that many lowly PC:s were sacked or given bad service records. Creating a myth that the police would try and avoid criticism by endorsing Mizen does not work.
Alfred Long was not handled with any generosity, was he? Not in relation to the inquest and not later. So that tactic will not work.

Fellow posters will remember I'm sure, Fish regards Swanson's report as the gold standard when it comes to collating all the latest and best information.

Swanson was the end of all matters police, Dust. He was the mill into which all the material was poured, and what came out was the official police line.
Sure enough, they got it wrong at times, but that doesn´t mean that Swanson alone should carry the responsibility for that - what he said, he said because he had been informed by Abberline et al.

You may be interested to hear that in the report of the 19:th of September, signed Your Holyness Frederick Abberline, it is stated that Llewellyn even before Nichols was ID:d was of the meaning that the abdomoinal wounds preceded the neck cuts. I take it that this settles the matter once and for all, since Abberline signed the report? And Abberline is never wrong?

The police was a prejudiced force (as was any police corpse in Europe at that time), and they failed to see the implications regarding Lechmere. They never got to know that he gave them the wrong name, they would not have known all the geographical implications etcetera. They would have been the victims of not having investigated Lechmere thoroughly, and this failure will colour their reports.

The police also has a responsibility to produce reports where all the details involved in a high-end case are fit together in a maqnner that makes some sort of sense. I have seen the exact same thing when it comes to the murder of Swedish Prime minister Olof Palme, where all the little parts had to be ground down around the edges before they would fit the overall picture the police commission opted for. Some parts could not be ground down enough for them to fit, and they were accordingly left outside the report. It is how it works, Dust - when the police don´t know, they can´t compile reports that explain everything. They are left to guess and to try to make ends meet. As a journalist, I have seen this many, many times.

Baxter's official line,

"The carmen (note the plural) reported the circumstances to a constable ... although he appeared to have started without delay, he found another constable was already there."

Baxter not only dismisses Mizen's claims, he seems to be saying that Mizen was surprised to find another P.C. there!

No, he does not. He expresses how he himself (Baxter) thought it odd. He says not a iot about any surprise on Mizens behalf, does he?

So the police (and they should know) supported Xmere.

The police supports everybody they don´t suspect, Dust. It´s the nature of things. They had a report to compile, and they never cast Lechmere in the killer´s role. Ergo, they cast him as an innocent witness, and that is how he is presented in their reports. Do you find that strange in any way?

Baxter believed Xmere.

See the above.

Why then shouldn't we?

Because we know more about these matters than the police did.

The police believed Christie and hung Evans - why then shouldn´t we?

Can you see the parallel I am ever so subtly hinting at, Dust:

The police knows too little - they make the wrong decision.

The police gets more knowledge - they realize that they were wrong.

[Fisherman]

>>As for papers lying, the suggestion is not a good one - you overdramatize rather heavily.<<

It was intended as humorous not literal.

You are not to blame either way - I brought it on myself. I could and should have worded myself less aggressively.

[curious4]

Quick answer: no. A fair guess would perhaps be one of the butchers.

Hello Fisherman and Ben

No, no you aremissing the intricacies of the British class system. No working class man would address another as "old man". A butcher might tell him to take a butcher's but between equals "mate" is and was and is the norm for working class men.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Regarding my last

Informally, especially among working-class (BrE), blue-collar (AmE) groups, casual forms of address are common: (1) Male to male, bud(dy) in the US (especially to a stranger); mac in Scotland and parts of North America (to an equal, especially a stranger so perceived); mate in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand (to an equal, including a stranger so perceived); pal in North America and Scotland (to an equal, especially a stranger so perceived). (2) Female and male to female, hen (in Scotland, especially in Glasgow); honey (especially in North America, including to strangers), and its variant hinny in the North of England; love (especially in England, including to a male and a stranger, virtually regardless of social position).http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O29-FORMOFADDRESS.html

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

Same source

This rule has, however, many refinements and exceptions. In Britain, in the public (that is, private) schools, socially prestigious clubs, the armed services, and other groups, it has been common for males to address each other by surname alone (Good to see you, Brown!, or, affectionately, Brown, my dear chap, it's good to see you!), but this practice appears to be on the wane.

(This article deals with modern day usage, old man, old chap were used at the time equally).

Best wishes
C4

[GUT]

This rule has, however, many refinements and exceptions. In Britain, in the public (that is, private) schools, socially prestigious clubs, the armed services, and other groups, it has been common for males to address each other by surname alone (Good to see you, Brown!, or, affectionately, Brown, my dear chap, it's good to see you!), but this practice appears to be on the wane.

(This article deals with modern day usage, old man, old chap was used at the time equally)

Best wishes
C4

Surname is still the normal form of address among Barristers.

Mate is my fallback, being an Aussie, covers a multitude of situations G'day Mate.

Especially when I've forgotten his darn name.

[Fisherman]

Surname is still the normal form of address among Barristers.

Mate is my fallback, being an Aussie, covers a multitude of situations G'day Mate.

Especially when I've forgotten his darn name.

When I visited Australia four or five years ago, I quickly turned into "mate".

In the East End, I am sometimes addressed "love".

I prefer both to "old man"...

PS. My dog, a four and a half month puppy, is also an Aussie. But it seems that simply means he´s American or even Spanish...

[Fisherman]

Hello Fisherman and Ben

No, no you aremissing the intricacies of the British class system. No working class man would address another as "old man". A butcher might tell him to take a butcher's but between equals "mate" is and was and is the norm for working class men.

Best wishes
C4

I always thought it sounded a bit affectionate, especially with the prefix "watchman":

"Watchman, old man, did you hear that..."

To me it sounds like a younger man paying a nice tribute to a significantly older man.

Then again, I am not the Englishman around here...

[GUT]

When I visited Australia four or five years ago, I quickly turned into "mate".

In the East End, I am sometimes addressed "love".

I prefer both to "old man"...

PS. My dog, a four and a half month puppy, is also an Aussie. But it seems that simply means he´s American or even Spanish...

Love's not uncommon here, was once the norm from barmaids.

What sort of pup? Mate

Had an English friend who called pretty much everyone Old Son.

[curious4]

I always thought it sounded a bit affectionate, especially with the prefix "watchman":

"Watchman, old man, did you hear that..."

To me it sounds like a younger man paying a nice tribute to a significantly older man.

Then again, I am not the Englishman around here...

Naah Fisherman, then he would have used "old c*ck!"

Best wishes
C4

[MrBarnett]

For what it's worth, in Cockney usage 'old man' and 'old lady/woman' were used for father/husband and mother/wife.

As in, 'My old man (husband) said follow the van...' and 'My old man's (father) a dustman.'

[curious4]

For what it's worth, in Cockney usage 'old man' and 'old lady/woman' were used for father/husband and mother/wife.

As in, 'My old man (husband) said follow the van...' and 'My old man's (father) a dustman.'

Hello Barnett

Yes, quite correct but not as a greeting. In fact in Kent, where I grew up, they still use "old" in front of a person's name. As in "old Gertie's gone down the council now!" - not meaning that the person is old, more affectionate/half admiring.

Best wishes
C4

[Fisherman]

What sort of pup?

An Australian Shepherd!