Lies or memory fallibility

[Pierre]

Who does Paul agree with?

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

I would have highlighted the portion of the text in which Paul mentioned ANYTHING about another PC in Bucks Row. Alas, it doesn't exist. Further, Paul says plenty about Mizen's reaction, doesn't he? Let me ask you this, Pierre: If you were around in 1888 and read this statement in the papers would you feel as if good, honest, Christian Mizen acted correctly? Or would you feel as if our sweet, upstanding, God-fearing constable may have been somewhat dismissive of the two men he met "at the top of Church-row" that night? Let's go one more step, shall we? Let's couple what you just read above with the fact that forthright, unwavering, hallowed Jonas with the FACT that he told exactly NO ONE in an official capacity (or otherwise, for all we know) about his interraction with these two men. He did not tell Neil as he spoke with him over the body as he was dispatched for an ambulance. He told no one at the mortuary later on Friday. He told no one on Saturday, holding his tounge as Neil testified that he and he alone found the body not mentioning these two men that he supposedly sent to fetch Mizen.

Now, given all this information, Pierre, WHO would any rational and right thinking person WITHOUT something to sell suspect may be lying?

Hi Patrick,

Well, I think itīs very difficult to use the papers for the question of who was lying and so on. At the inquest they are sworn and we still have the problem with the risk of misremembering. So I find it really hard to draw conclusions from any of these materials in the matter of who lied or who remembered. Thatīs why I donīt understand how Fisherman can do it.

And thatīs why I think it is impossible to make more of it than an unconfirmed hypothesis that this person was a killer, any killer, and especially the Whitechapel murderer.

Regards Pierre

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,

Well, I think itīs very difficult to use the papers for the question of who was lying and so on. At the inquest they are sworn and we still have the problem with the risk of misremembering. So I find it really hard to draw conclusions from any of these materials in the matter of who lied or who remembered. Thatīs why I donīt understand how Fisherman can do it.

And thatīs why I think it is impossible to make more of it than an unconfirmed hypothesis that this person was a killer, any killer, and especially the Whitechapel murderer.

Regards Pierre

What you say here has been argued on these pages for years, by myself and others. I said much the same on this thread, if you go back and read. I offer no conclusions. I suggest no "suspects". I'll leave that to you (in future) and Christer. What I offer with respect to Mizen is a simple interpretation of the information we do have. If you research PC Thain, his cape, and Tompkins, you'll see another instance of a PC telling an obvious fib to protect himself. Again, common sense....yet not sinister or profitable.

Pierre....I think Christer may not be willing to play with you anymore. BE CAREFUL.

[Pierre]

There is mainly one reason: Lechmere and Mizen disagree on many different points.

They do not only disagree on the other PC:s presence in Bucks Row.

They also disagree on how serious the carman disclosed the errand to be.

They also disagree on whether one or two of the carmen spoke to Mizen.

They also disagree about what was said about the background to the errand (Lechmere says that he told the PC what had happened, but Mizen says that the carman had told him that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row, not that the carman himself had found her).

Further to this, Mizen is absolutely certain that the carman said nothing about any murder or suicide. It is therefore clear that Mizen seems to be sure that he was able to hear and interpret what the carman said.

In the end, if they had disagreed on ONE matter, it would be easier to swallow that it was a mishearing. But once we have a significant number of "mishearings", we need to accept that one of the two probably lied.

It is also of interest that the lies that were produced IF Mizen was correct, were all lies that would be optimised to take the carman past the PC.

It is also of interest that it was said that it was a totally silent noght with no people on the streets, minimizing disturbances.

Thanks Fisherman.

So disagreement is the main reason you think Lechmere-Cross is a liar and Mizen a truth teller.

But actually disagreement is what we get when witnesses canīt recall exactly what happened. There is plenty of research on that. So why make the choice of constructing L-C as a liar and Mizen as a truth teller on that ground?

And what would L-C gain from lying about:

1. The seriousness of the errand
2. The number of carmen speaking to Mizen
3. The presence of another PC?

He must have had something to gain. Otherwise he wouldnīt lie at an inquest.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

What you say here has been argued on these pages for years, by myself and others. I said much the same on this thread, if you go back and read. I offer no conclusions. I suggest no "suspects". I'll leave that to you (in future) and Christer. What I offer with respect to Mizen is a simple interpretation of the information we do have. If you research PC Thain, his cape, and Tompkins, you'll see another instance of a PC telling an obvious fib to protect himself. Again, common sense....yet not sinister or profitable.

Pierre....I think Christer may not be willing to play with you anymore. BE CAREFUL.

Hi Patrick,

Yes, and it is interesting that one actually can interpret a set of data in different ways and get contradictive results. You make a very good point there.

Thanks for your advise on being careful. I appreciate that. And I believe Christer is serious in his research and will be interested in discussing his case if he has the time. (Sorry for speaking of you in the third person Christer, if you read this).

Regards Pierre

[Fisherman]

Thanks Fisherman.

So disagreement is the main reason you think Lechmere-Cross is a liar and Mizen a truth teller.

But actually disagreement is what we get when witnesses canīt recall exactly what happened. There is plenty of research on that. So why make the choice of constructing L-C as a liar and Mizen as a truth teller on that ground?

And what would L-C gain from lying about:

1. The seriousness of the errand
2. The number of carmen speaking to Mizen
3. The presence of another PC?

He must have had something to gain. Otherwise he wouldnīt lie at an inquest.

Regards Pierre

The answers to these questions have been provided numerous times. They are all to be found on the boards.