Lechmere Continuation Thread

[drstrange169]

Ker-ching! Gut.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, John G.

"Was he told that there was a woman "lying either dead or drunk?""
According to testimony offered by Cross at the inquest, he was so informed: Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman[Mizen] said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man[Paul] left witness soon after.(The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man[Paul] stated he believed her to be dead. The constable[Mizen] replied "All right." (The Times, 1888,September 4)
"And the fact that he wasn't disciplined implies his superiors didn't disbelieve him."
The fact that there was contradictory evidence given in testimony didn't escape the notice of at least one juryman at the inquest so we might reasonably conclude that such disagreement didn't elude the keen minds of Mizen's superiors either. From what records we have access to, it does seem that Mizen wasn't formally disciplined. If, as you suggest, this indicates that they believed Mizen's testimony to be entirely truthful, then how might one explain the seeming failure of the police to enquire further into the reasons for what they should, logically, have believed to be false testimony, offered under oath, by Cross?

"In fact, it would be my guess that Paul was out of earshot for at least part of the conversation, otherwise it would have been a dangerous lie for either Lechmere or PC Mizen to have told."
There is nothing in the testimony that suggests that Paul would have been ' out of earshot '. Indeed the testimony greatly suggests that the pair approached Mizen together and then, having given their information regarding the body, left together.

Yours, Caligo

[David Orsam]

Number One Priority - Protect Life. 'Knocking Up' is nowhere.

Having been told that there was a woman lying either dead or drunk in Bucks Row, Mizen's over-riding priority should have been to go to Bucks Row and check the exact situation. This is beyond argument.

It's not beyond argument at all. Knocking up was part of Mizen's official duties. And he was not supposed to leave his beat except in emergency. A drunk woman would not constitute an emergency. People who did not get woken up at the correct time may well have complained and Mizen would undoubtedly have been disciplined if he left his beat improperly.

However, this really all goes off at a tangent from the very simple point about there being some suspicion attached to Lechmere due to Mizen's evidence that he lied.

[David Orsam]

As I've pointed out I still believe several newspapers used a news agency, which of course means only one reporter had to get it wrong.

But there were a number of different news agencies in existence at the time.

Given the significant differences between the reports in the different newspapers you surely can't be saying that one agency reporter filed multiple different reports to different newspapers (with different spellings of witness names) can you?

[David Orsam]

I can't really agree with the authorities part of your post. Why would they depend on the newspaper when they could check the official record in the course of their job?

I'm afraid that this is where your lack of knowledge is revealed Columbo.

The authorities could not simply "check the official record" by which I assume you mean the depositions. The depositions never went to the Home Office or to the Metropolitan Police. They never saw them. Police officers would have attended the inquest but they were not trained in court reporting so the best and fullest reports of the proceedings available would have been in the newspapers.

[David Orsam]

If he (Cross)lied. Nothing speaks of certainty.Cannot see where that helps in determining whether Cross cut Nichols throat sometime earlier.Cross did testify under oath,and nothing I have read indicates he was disbelieved by the coroner.Both he and Mizen were witnesses,rank or status meant nothing.

But I mentioned ages ago that suspicion is totally different to proof. Of course suspicion against Cross does not mean that he cut Nichols throat. Mizen's evidence is just a reason why suspicion attaches to Cross but that's a million miles away from saying he committed the murder. There may be many suspects in a murder investigation. It doesn't mean they all did it!

[John G]

Hi, John G.

"Was he told that there was a woman "lying either dead or drunk?""
According to testimony offered by Cross at the inquest, he was so informed: Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman[Mizen] said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man[Paul] left witness soon after.(The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man[Paul] stated he believed her to be dead. The constable[Mizen] replied "All right." (The Times, 1888,September 4)
"And the fact that he wasn't disciplined implies his superiors didn't disbelieve him."
The fact that there was contradictory evidence given in testimony didn't escape the notice of at least one juryman at the inquest so we might reasonably conclude that such disagreement didn't elude the keen minds of Mizen's superiors either. From what records we have access to, it does seem that Mizen wasn't formally disciplined. If, as you suggest, this indicates that they believed Mizen's testimony to be entirely truthful, then how might one explain the seeming failure of the police to enquire further into the reasons for what they should, logically, have believed to be false testimony, offered under oath, by Cross?

"In fact, it would be my guess that Paul was out of earshot for at least part of the conversation, otherwise it would have been a dangerous lie for either Lechmere or PC Mizen to have told."
There is nothing in the testimony that suggests that Paul would have been ' out of earshot '. Indeed the testimony greatly suggests that the pair approached Mizen together and then, having given their information regarding the body, left together.

Yours, Caligo

Yes, but you're relying once again on Cross' testimony. PC Mizen certainly didn't testify to the effect that he was informed the victim might be dead. And Paul doesn't refer to the conversation at all, which makes me think Cross took the lead. And there certainly does seem to be a major difference of opinion between Cross and Paul's assessment of the situation. For instance, Paul seemed convinced Nichols was either dead or at least close to death, whereas Cross was of the opinion that she was not seriously injured, and may simply have been drunk or in a "swoon."

The fact that PC Mizen wasn't formally disciplined indicates, at the very least, that his superiors were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Moreover, his otherwise unblemished record is strong evidence that he was a reliable and diligent officer, i.e. not the sort of officer who would be neglectful in his duties-in fact, not responding enthusiastically to evidence from a witness who's just reported coming across a dead body would surely amount to gross negligence.

As for Cross not comming under greater scrutiny following his evidence, well may I refer you to the latter Ripper-Style murder of Mary Austin, where the overseer, Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother in law, clearly lied under oath at the inquest and may well, at the very least, have covered up a murder. In fact, his evidence was so outrageous that Coroner Baxter resorted to sarcasm. Nonetheless, he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath, either, or as far as I know, subjected to a police investigation.

My own gut feeling is that the authorities didn't regard Cross' actions as typical of a stereotypical murderer, i.e. calling over another witness when discovered with the body rather than, say, fleeing the scene of the crime. Additionally, even if they had serious doubts about the veracity of his account, they might have assumed that he lied, or possibly lied, because he was anxious not be detained on account of the fact that he was already late for work.

Of course, today we realise there's nothing stereotypical about serial killers, some of whom can be extremely sagacious in the way they carry out and cover up their crimes.

[John G]

"Against that if a man who also had an unblemished record".

Ah, but PC Mizen wasn't discovered next to a brutally murdered victim-and a victim who may still have been alive at the time, and therefore very recently attacked.

Moreover, as a serving police officer his career and lifestyle would no doubt have been more carefully scrutinized than, say, that of Cross.

[David Orsam]

But what on earth would have made him think that saying there was another cop summoning Mizen to the scene of a murder was going to make Mizen let him go unexamined?

Well hold on, that's what happened in reality isn't it? So it's reasonable to suppose that someone familiar with police behaviour in 1888 would know it was the likely outcome.

[John G]

Well hold on, that's what happened in reality isn't it? So it's reasonable to suppose that someone familiar with police behaviour in 1888 would know it was the likely outcome.

And, as I've already noted, if he had murdered Nichols he probably didn't have a lot of options at this point so a calculated gamble might have seemed like a reasonable alternative.

I'm also frankly amazed at how many posters seem to think that murderers/serial killers always act in rational, predictable ways. Well, I'm sorry to shatter this illusion but they often don't (although, no doubt, the police would be delighted to see some of this thread's contributors sitting on a jury-or, on second thoughts, perhaps not!)

I mean, "what on earth would have made" William Bury think that, by walking into a police station and claiming that his wife had committed suicide-and in a fairly unusual way, by hanging herself-the authorities would believe him? And "what on earth would have made" him believe that, as a consequence, he was seized by a mad impulse, resulting in him plunging his knife into her abdomen several times?

Of course, they didn't, although a jury almost did! Perhaps they were compromised of similar-minded people to some of this thread's contributors!

And note, his first instinct was also not to flee the scene of the crime-even though he could easily have headed back to London-but to try and talk his way out of the serious predicament he found himself in.

I'm sorry, but murders and serial killers come in all shapes and sizes, to coin a phrase, and they certainly don't all wander around with the words "I'm a serial killer, catch me if you can", tattooed to their forehead!

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, John G.

"Yes, but you're relying once again on Cross' testimony. PC Mizen certainly didn't testify to the effect that he was informed the victim might be dead. And Paul doesn't refer to the conversation at all,"

Here is Paul, from a Sunday newspaper article:
"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." (Lloyd's Weekly, 1888,September 2)
Here is his reported testimony from the inquest:
"Witness[Paul] felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met." "By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness [Paul]and the other man[Cross] walked on together until they met a policeman[Mizen] at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body." (The Times, 1888,September 18)

And "Her hands and face were cold. He[Paul] knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met." (St. James Gazette, 1888,September 18)
Paul seems here to be of the opinion that the woman is deceased, goes in search of a policeman and when describing the encounter with Mizen, says that he informed him about "what they had seen". Paul here is saying, in fewer words than we might like, that he told Mizen there was a dead woman in Bucks Row.

"Cross was of the opinion that she was not seriously injured, and may simply have been drunk or in a "swoon.""

"Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."" (The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk," (The Times, 1888,September 4)

"As for Cross not comming under greater scrutiny following his evidence, well may I refer you to the latter Ripper-Style murder of Mary Austin, where the overseer, Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother in law, clearly lied under oath at the inquest and may well, at the very least, have covered up a murder. / Nonetheless, he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath, either, or as far as I know, subjected to a police investigation."
Yes, it is an interesting case and as you are familiar with it, you will be aware that Sullivan was not the only person being unhelpful and obfuscatory. The police and the Coroner were conscious of his attempted deception before he took the stand and it seems to have been hoped that some positive headway in the case might be made and new information revealed by him finding himself in an unfavourable situation, while on the stand. He certainly tried the Coroners patience.
I suspect that one reason as to why, despite his behaviour, he was not prosecuted for perjury might be that the police believed some useful fact might still be yielded from him. Also, much of the knowledge they had regarding his misdirection had come from persons who at one time or another had offered similarly misleading information and had then later changed their initial statements.
As fascinating as it is, the case has little similarity to the Cross/Mizen problem. In one we are dealing with a willful conspiracy and obvious attempt to deceive the police and thwart their investigation. In the other, we are looking at three persons presenting contradictory testimony about one minor aspect of the same event.

Yours, Caligo

[John G]

Hi, John G.

"Yes, but you're relying once again on Cross' testimony. PC Mizen certainly didn't testify to the effect that he was informed the victim might be dead. And Paul doesn't refer to the conversation at all,"

Here is Paul, from a Sunday newspaper article:
"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." (Lloyd's Weekly, 1888,September 2)
Here is his reported testimony from the inquest:
"Witness[Paul] felt her hands and face, and they were cold. He knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but could not, and he thought she was dead. It was very dark, and he did not notice any blood. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best thing they could do would be to tell the first policeman they met." "By the CORONER. - The morning was rather a chilly one. Witness [Paul]and the other man[Cross] walked on together until they met a policeman[Mizen] at the corner of Old Montagu-street, and told him what they had seen. Up to that time not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he saw the body." (The Times, 1888,September 18)

And "Her hands and face were cold. He[Paul] knelt down to see if he could hear her breathe, but he could not. They[Paul and Cross] agreed that the best course to pursue was to tell the first policeman they met." (St. James Gazette, 1888,September 18)
Paul seems here to be of the opinion that the woman is deceased, goes in search of a policeman and when describing the encounter with Mizen, says that he informed him about "what they had seen". Paul here is saying, in fewer words than we might like, that he told Mizen there was a dead woman in Bucks Row.

"Cross was of the opinion that she was not seriously injured, and may simply have been drunk or in a "swoon.""

"Witness[Cross] said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead."" (The Daily Telegraph, 1888,September 3)
"Witness[Cross] also said he believed she was dead or drunk," (The Times, 1888,September 4)

"As for Cross not comming under greater scrutiny following his evidence, well may I refer you to the latter Ripper-Style murder of Mary Austin, where the overseer, Daniel Sullivan, William Crossingham's brother in law, clearly lied under oath at the inquest and may well, at the very least, have covered up a murder. / Nonetheless, he wasn't prosecuted for lying under oath, either, or as far as I know, subjected to a police investigation."
Yes, it is an interesting case and as you are familiar with it, you will be aware that Sullivan was not the only person being unhelpful and obfuscatory. The police and the Coroner were conscious of his attempted deception before he took the stand and it seems to have been hoped that some positive headway in the case might be made and new information revealed by him finding himself in an unfavourable situation, while on the stand. He certainly tried the Coroners patience.
I suspect that one reason as to why, despite his behaviour, he was not prosecuted for perjury might be that the police believed some useful fact might still be yielded from him. Also, much of the knowledge they had regarding his misdirection had come from persons who at one time or another had offered similarly misleading information and had then later changed their initial statements.
As fascinating as it is, the case has little similarity to the Cross/Mizen problem. In one we are dealing with a willful conspiracy and obvious attempt to deceive the police and thwart their investigation. In the other, we are looking at three persons presenting contradictory testimony about one minor aspect of the same event.

Yours, Caligo

There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead. And, as I'm sure you're aware, the newspaper articles are inconsistent-most of them imply that Cross took the lead in speaking to Mizen and Paul played little, if any, part. And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events? And why wasn't he disciplined, if in fact, Paul did support Cross' version?

Cross' testimony is also inconsistent, if not contradictory, which might, but not necessarily, suggest that he was trying to dig himself out of a very big hole. Thus, on one hand he says that he thinks Nichols might have been dead, but then he states that he believed she wasn't even seriously injured and might have merely been drunk or in a swoon!

Moreover, PC Mizen was a police officer with an exemplary record, as David has illustrated, with no disciplinary actions against him. But to have blithely ignored the possibility that a victim was lying down in the street, possibly close to death, would have been a serious dereliction of duty.

At the end of the day, as I've noted several times now, it's the word of a police officer with an unblemished record against that of a man discovered looming over a dead body. It really is as simple as that.

[Columbo]

I'm afraid that this is where your lack of knowledge is revealed Columbo.

The authorities could not simply "check the official record" by which I assume you mean the depositions. The depositions never went to the Home Office or to the Metropolitan Police. They never saw them. Police officers would have attended the inquest but they were not trained in court reporting so the best and fullest reports of the proceedings available would have been in the newspapers.

You're right about my knowledge on this. Very newbie.

Columbo

[Bridewell]

It's not beyond argument at all. Knocking up was part of Mizen's official duties. And he was not supposed to leave his beat except in emergency. A drunk woman would not constitute an emergency.

A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead. She turns out to have been dead, but Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out. He was wrong to do so.

People who did not get woken up at the correct time may well have complained and Mizen would undoubtedly have been disciplined if he left his beat improperly.

They might well have complained, but that doesn't mean they had anything to complain about. Knocking up would be subject to the exigencies of duty. He would not have been disciplined in the circumstances, because he would have been acting in accordance with his duty.

Cross (if truthful) told the officer he thought it more likely that the woman was dead than drunk. Given that the Number 1 Duty is protection of life, that would constitute an emergency. (if it doesn't it is hard to think of anything that would, frankly). Having been told 'drunk' or 'dead' Mizen should have assumed the latter until he knew otherwise. He would not have been disciplined for leaving his beat under such circumstances. If the woman had turned out to be drunk, he could have handed her over to Neill and returned to his own area.

However, this really all goes off at a tangent from the very simple point about there being some suspicion attached to Lechmere due to Mizen's evidence that he lied.

True - but only if Mizen himself was not lying about what was said (which I believe to have been the case, for reasons already stated).

[David Orsam]

A dead or dying woman (as Nichols was) would constitute an emergency. Mizen knew only that she was drunk or dead. She turns out to have been dead, but Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out. He was wrong to do so.

Well a drunk woman would not constitute an emergency. A dead woman would. So it depends on what he had been toldm and what he was told - according to his evidence - was that he had been summoned by another constable.

It's not quite true to say that Mizen prioritised knocking up over checking the matter out because he said he completed the knocking up task in which he was engaged and then went to Bucks Row. But it's very easy for you to speak with hindsight in 2016 that his actions were 'wrong'. There was no clear answer.

But anyway, what's this all got to do with Mizen's evidence that Lechmere lied to him?