Lechmere-Cross bye bye

[Patrick S]

Yes, everyone would originally have thought that Neil was the officer Robert Paul spoke of. That is why he was asked whether two men directed him to the body or not; Pauls story involved him and Lechmere finding the body and telling a PC about it, and the natural thing to assume would be that this PC was Neil, who claimed to have found the body.

However, if the police had accepted Robert Pauls story, as written in Lloyds Weekly on the 2:nd, they would not let Neil go on claiming that he was the finder.They would have known that the carmen were. And that is not what is says in the article. It instead claims that the body was found at 3.45 and that the finder was Neil.

And the wording "It is not true ..." shiuld have been followed by an explanation about what REALLY happened if the police had put faith in Robert Pauls story.

It can be added that Robert Paul did not come forward to the police - he was interviewed by the press only, and when the police finally realized that he was a material witness, they set out to look for him, AFTER the second inquest day.
Up til that stage, he had been of no interest, but after Lechmeres testimony,he was upgraded and sought after.

And as we know, through all of this Mizen remains silent. He tells not a soul. He shows up in Buck's Row, speaks with Neil. Goes for the ambulance. Doesn't say, "Hi, John! I'm here like you asked!....Those two guys sent me...are you the policeman they said was awaiting me in here?" Nope. He doesn't hear Neil telling the tale at the mortuary and say, "Wait a minute. I thought you sent those two guys for me?" Nope. We know he didn't tell his superiors because Neil testified otherwise, right? We know Mizen didn't come forward until Paul effectively identified his beat in the press. So, the question is this: Does a sensible person concluce that Mizen kept completely silent about Paul and Lechmere because he was so utterly DUPED by the "Mizen Scam " or because he wasn't thrilled about presenting information that makes him look lazy, unconcerned, unresponsive?

[Monty]

In police terms, PC Neil was the finder of the deceased.

The terminology used by the police is correct. Alas, it is misunderstood by Christer. Still, as he refuses to educate himself on the matter, he only has himself to blame.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Patrick S,

PC Neil wasn't where he should have been at around 3.45 am.

PC Mizen's testimony put him where he should have been.

Regards,

Simon

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick S,

PC Neil wasn't where he should have been at around 3.45 am.

PC Mizen's testimony put him where he should have been.

Regards,

Simon

Hi, Simon.

I'm not sure I follow. A bit more information?

[Fisherman]

In police terms, PC Neil was the finder of the deceased.

The terminology used by the police is correct. Alas, it is misunderstood by Christer. Still, as he refuses to educate himself on the matter, he only has himself to blame.

Monty

The terminology of the police is grossly misleading if you are right.

That is work from the assumption that you are wrong - I put a bit more trust in the police than you do.

Maybe I shouldn´t though. Rock ´n roll writer Bruce Robinson has another picture of the police. Maybe you have read it yourself:

"The majority of the London constabulary," Robinson argues, "were good for nothing but lying. They were a kind of tea-brewing Cosa Nostra, as corrupt as anything in the slums of Naples." One senior detective, he writes, "couldn't look at a bottle of ink without fishing it for lies". This was London in the late 1880s when, as the author puts it, "you could f*** a child for five shillings but you couldn't read Zola."

Makes me wonder if you could be correct - maybe they WERE that incompetent?

[Patrick S]

Hi, Simon.

I'm not sure I follow. A bit more information?

After re-reading, I get it, Simon. Thanks.

PDS

[Simon Wood]

Hi Patrick S,

It's fairly obvious that PC Neil was nowhere near, or even approaching, Nichols' body at 3.45 am, half an hour after he had last passed the spot.

He was somewhere else. Location and reason as yet unknown.

Cross did not see a policeman between leaving Nichols' body and his encounter with PC Mizen, and he said as much at the inquest.

PC Neil not being where he should have been at 3.45 am had to be explained, otherwise he might have been in dereliction of his duty.

PC Mizen obviated any awkward questions by stating that Cross and another man said that he [Mizen] "was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance."

One copper looking after another.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

The terminology of the police is grossly misleading if you are right.

That is work from the assumption that you are wrong - I put a bit more trust in the police than you do.

Maybe I shouldn´t though. Rock ´n roll writer Bruce Robinson has another picture of the police. Maybe you have read it yourself:

"The majority of the London constabulary," Robinson argues, "were good for nothing but lying. They were a kind of tea-brewing Cosa Nostra, as corrupt as anything in the slums of Naples." One senior detective, he writes, "couldn't look at a bottle of ink without fishing it for lies". This was London in the late 1880s when, as the author puts it, "you could f*** a child for five shillings but you couldn't read Zola."

Makes me wonder if you could be correct - maybe they WERE that incompetent?

I sometimes wonder if your attempts to twist words in a fallout from your need to show your theory sound at all costs, or a subconscious reaction.

As Cross and Paul were unsure if Nichols was deceased, whereas Neil applied Code procedure to establish death (and sort medical confirmation), the PC was the first to find the body. Thee terminology is exact and correct.

As for Bruce, you may get moist for a 'rock n roll' writer, however it takes a little more than mere opinion of a man whose contribution to the field has been nothing but to bitch n moan whilst doing nowt of worth to turn my head.

When he comes out with evidence, rather than opinion, then I may, stress may, raise and eyebrow....nothing more.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Patrick S,

It's fairly obvious that PC Neil was nowhere near, or even approaching, Nichols' body at 3.45 am, half an hour after he had last passed the spot.

He was somewhere else. Location and reason as yet unknown.

Cross did not see a policeman between leaving Nichols' body and his encounter with PC Mizen, and he said as much at the inquest.

PC Neil not being where he should have been at 3.45 am had to be explained, otherwise he might have been in dereliction of his duty.

PC Mizen obviated any awkward questions by stating that Cross and another man said that he [Mizen] "was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance."

One copper looking after another.

Regards,

Simon

Neil alludes to his reasons in his testimony.

Monty

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick S,

It's fairly obvious that PC Neil was nowhere near, or even approaching, Nichols' body at 3.45 am, half an hour after he had last passed the spot.

He was somewhere else. Location and reason as yet unknown.

Cross did not see a policeman between leaving Nichols' body and his encounter with PC Mizen, and he said as much at the inquest.

PC Neil not being where he should have been at 3.45 am had to be explained, otherwise he might have been in dereliction of his duty.

PC Mizen obviated any awkward questions by stating that Cross and another man said that he [Mizen] "was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance."

One copper looking after another.

Regards,

Simon

Ah. Thanks. Quite possible. And yet another explanation other than Cross the Ripper.

PDS

[Simon Wood]

Hi Patrick S,

Cross was no more the Ripper than my Aunt Dorothy.

Regards,

Simon

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick S,

Cross was no more the Ripper than my Aunt Dorothy.

Regards,

Simon

Don't let Christer talk to your Aunt Dorothy.

[Monty]

How long does it take to walk from the murder scene in Bucks Row to Bakers row junction?

Less than a minute.

Hardly nowhere near the scene

Monty

[IchabodCrane]

"Just then they heard a policeman coming."

Hi Patrick S,

It's fairly obvious that PC Neil was nowhere near, or even approaching, Nichols' body at 3.45 am, half an hour after he had last passed the spot.

He was somewhere else. Location and reason as yet unknown.

Cross did not see a policeman between leaving Nichols' body and his encounter with PC Mizen, and he said as much at the inquest.

PC Neil not being where he should have been at 3.45 am had to be explained, otherwise he might have been in dereliction of his duty.

PC Mizen obviated any awkward questions by stating that Cross and another man said that he [Mizen] "was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance."

One copper looking after another.

Regards,

Simon

Unfortunately I don't have a lot of time to spend at the boards reading up, so please forgive my ignorance if the answer to my question should be obvious.

I am still confused about this mysterious sentence from Chas. Andrew Cross' inquest testimony as reported by the daily telegraph:
"Just then they heard a policeman coming."

Is there anybody else confused or am I the only one? Whom did they hear? Is it likely a misreporting or a devilishly cunning part of the 'Mizen Scam'?

Thanks for any update or ideas,
IchabodCrane

[Simon Wood]

Hi IchabodCrane,

In the absence of PC Neil in Great Eastern Square or Bucks Row at 3.45 am I think we are supposed to assume it was PC Thain, walking up Brady Street.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Regards,

Simon