Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

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.

His duty was to engage in knocking up and not leave his beat.

Police Orders 9 February 1853, still in force in 1888, regarding "calling people up in the morning":

"The Police are bound to render this or any other service in their power to the inhabitants and any neglect is to be reported, and will be punished".

According to the Police Code, a constable was: "Not to leave the beat, except in cases of fire, accident, or other emergency, returning as soon as possible". It was also stated in the same Police Code that misconduct would involve: "Leaving a fixed point or beat improperly".

A drunken woman would not, I think, have been considered an emergency so, if Nichols had simply been drunk, Mizen could well have been punished for misconduct.

But I don't think this has anything to do with issue of Mizen's evidence being that Lechmere lied.

[John G]

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.


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.


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).

Of course, as you've intimidated, the main issue is whether Mizen was actually told that Nichols was either dead or drunk? As I've noted before, doesn't this argument rely almost entirely on Cross' version of their conversation? A version that was clearly disputed by PC Mizen in his evidence at the inquest.

Not that I'm really sure what Cross' version of events actually was. I mean, at the inquest he stated that Nichols might have been drunk, dead, in a swoon, not seriously injured!

[harry]

David Orsan,
There was no question in 1888 that Cross lied.There was no claim that he lied.His testimony differed from Mizen in one respect,and my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed.It is not a question that could/can be decided by proof.The same situation could result for instance between a baker and a butcher,and which one of those would take precedence by reason of status?Mizen and Cross were both witnesses of equal status.Each was a person of impeccable character in their respective ways of life.To say Cross must be suspect on the word of Mizen is incorrect.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, John G.

"There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead."
In an absolute and literal sense, that is correct. However, I have previously provided, within this thread, three articles; one of which is an interview with Paul and was conducted within a day or so of the murder and two of which report upon his testimony at the inquest proceedings. In each of these reportings, Paul makes it plainly understood that he believed the woman was deceased and that he then went on to inform the policeman about "what they had seen" or "and I told him what I had seen", on Bucks Row.
A sober and impartial reading of his testimony indicates distinctly that he is informing Mizen of the dead body.
Those sitting at the inquest, including the Coroner, clearly seemed to have no difficulty grasping the import of his words, or they should surely have enquired further of the witness for clarification.

"And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events?"
Such a question carries within it a mischaractersation of several things at once. Mizen gave his testimony ahead of both Cross and Paul. He frankly could not know as to whether his own recollection of events would differ, in some vital area, from the testimonies to be offered later by either of those witnesses. To indicate that he might be concerned with what Paul may speak to, in corroboration of Cross, appears to imply that, in some manner, Mizen was appraised of the likely direction that Cross's testimony would progress. I should be interested if you have any evidence for this. It further seems to suggest that somewhere, nestled within the newspaper articles and as yet undetected by others, there might be some implication that one or other person was willfully deceitful in their given testimony.

"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."
This would be his testimony that was reported in the newspapers, the same of which, in the preceding paragraph, you characterised in this manner: "the newspaper articles are inconsistent"?

"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."
I agree; such unurgent behaviour would surely have demonstrated a grave negligence of his lawly obligations. If, indeed, events had occurred that way. But you are the one using the phrase 'blithely ignored'. I have offered nothing which might suggest Mizen was tardy in his response. You seem here to be arguing against an edifice that you yourself have constructed.

Yours, Caligo

[drstrange169]

I see poster Caligo U. has already highlighted the inconsistencies in John's comments so I need say no more.

[Columbo]

Hi, John G.

"There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead."
In an absolute and literal sense, that is correct. However, I have previously provided, within this thread, three articles; one of which is an interview with Paul and was conducted within a day or so of the murder and two of which report upon his testimony at the inquest proceedings. In each of these reportings, Paul makes it plainly understood that he believed the woman was deceased and that he then went on to inform the policeman about "what they had seen" or "and I told him what I had seen", on Bucks Row.
A sober and impartial reading of his testimony indicates distinctly that he is informing Mizen of the dead body.
Those sitting at the inquest, including the Coroner, clearly seemed to have no difficulty grasping the import of his words, or they should surely have enquired further of the witness for clarification.

"And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events?"
Such a question carries within it a mischaractersation of several things at once. Mizen gave his testimony ahead of both Cross and Paul. He frankly could not know as to whether his own recollection of events would differ, in some vital area, from the testimonies to be offered later by either of those witnesses. To indicate that he might be concerned with what Paul may speak to, in corroboration of Cross, appears to imply that, in some manner, Mizen was appraised of the likely direction that Cross's testimony would progress. I should be interested if you have any evidence for this. It further seems to suggest that somewhere, nestled within the newspaper articles and as yet undetected by others, there might be some implication that one or other person was willfully deceitful in their given testimony.

"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."
This would be his testimony that was reported in the newspapers, the same of which, in the preceding paragraph, you characterised in this manner: "the newspaper articles are inconsistent"?

"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."
I agree; such unurgent behaviour would surely have demonstrated a grave negligence of his lawly obligations. If, indeed, events had occurred that way. But you are the one using the phrase 'blithely ignored'. I have offered nothing which might suggest Mizen was tardy in his response. You seem here to be arguing against an edifice that you yourself have constructed.

Yours, Caligo

Good Post.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

my argument is against a suggestion that because Mizen was a policeman,and on that particular alone,Mizen should be believed.

In which case (as I have suspected from the start) you are arguing against a suggestion that I haven't made.

I'm not saying that anyone should be believed or disbelieved. In fact, it seems that you are the only one putting forward such an argument, if you are suggesting that Mizen should be disbelieved.

I'm only saying that if Mizen's evidence is correct - and I repeat, if it is correct, then Lechmere lied. In other words, if the police evidence is correct then Lechmere lied. On the face of it, in other words, Lechmere lied. But the face of it might not be correct. Suspicion is not proof. Nor does suspicion involve believing one person over another. We can't possibly know in 2016 whether Mizen or Lechmere was correct and/or truthful so the suspicion against Lechmere must remain.

[Columbo]

In which case (as I have suspected from the start) you are arguing against a suggestion that I haven't made.

I'm not saying that anyone should be believed or disbelieved. In fact, it seems that you are the only one putting forward such an argument, if you are suggesting that Mizen should be disbelieved.

I'm only saying that if Mizen's evidence is correct - and I repeat, if it is correct, then Lechmere lied. In other words, if the police evidence is correct then Lechmere lied. On the face of it, in other words, Lechmere lied. But the face of it might not be correct. Suspicion is not proof. Nor does suspicion involve believing one person over another. We can't possibly know in 2016 whether Mizen or Lechmere was correct and/or truthful so the suspicion against Lechmere must remain.

Very true but there is such a thing as deductive reasoning. We may never know, but we can infer by the evidence.

Columbo

[David Orsam]

Very true but there is such a thing as deductive reasoning. We may never know, but we can infer by the evidence.

That's absolutely right. One can infer away to one's heart's content. And one can put forward arguments that Lechmere was entirely innocent.

All I've ever been saying is that there is some evidence on the surface, at a superficial level if you like, that Lechmere told a lie. That doesn't mean he definitely, or even probably, did tell a lie nor that if he did tell a lie he was the murderer. There are all kinds of arguments for and against and I've been trying to ignore those in this thread because that debate doesn't relate to the simple (and undeniable) point I've been making about one element of suspicion.

[GUT]

And if Lechmere told the truth, Mizen lied, I don't get in any way how that helps.

[Columbo]

That's absolutely right. One can infer away to one's heart's content. And one can put forward arguments that Lechmere was entirely innocent.

All I've ever been saying is that there is some evidence on the surface, at a superficial level if you like, that Lechmere told a lie. That doesn't mean he definitely, or even probably, did tell a lie nor that if he did tell a lie he was the murderer. There are all kinds of arguments for and against and I've been trying to ignore those in this thread because that debate doesn't relate to the simple (and undeniable) point I've been making about one element of suspicion.

Good point as well. I've enjoyed your posts on this thread.

Columbo

[Columbo]

And if Lechmere told the truth, Mizen lied, I don't get in any way how that helps.

I've become a bit confused on that myself and I'm glad I don't have a dog in this fight.

Columbo

[harry]

David Orsan,
I did not say you made the suggestion that Mizen should be believed because he was a policeman.I was putting my view w ithout naming a particular poster,as I usually do,and you choosed to respond using my name..Read my original post.
Where do I say Mizen should be disbelieved?.You say if Mizen's evidence is correct.That is the problem.You, nor I, nor anyone can prove it is,therefor it has no value in determining Cross's honesty.
Had Mizen done what he should have,that is recorded the conversation,then or at the earliest opportunity,that would have certainly been a point in his favour.As it is,it appears the evidence relies on memory.Is that enough to point the finger of suspicion at Cross?

[John G]

Hi, John G.

"There is no newspaper article which states that Paul, at the inquest, informed PC Mizen that he thought Nichols was dead."
In an absolute and literal sense, that is correct. However, I have previously provided, within this thread, three articles; one of which is an interview with Paul and was conducted within a day or so of the murder and two of which report upon his testimony at the inquest proceedings. In each of these reportings, Paul makes it plainly understood that he believed the woman was deceased and that he then went on to inform the policeman about "what they had seen" or "and I told him what I had seen", on Bucks Row.
A sober and impartial reading of his testimony indicates distinctly that he is informing Mizen of the dead body.
Those sitting at the inquest, including the Coroner, clearly seemed to have no difficulty grasping the import of his words, or they should surely have enquired further of the witness for clarification.

"And why would PC Mizen lie in such an obvious way if he thought a witness, Paul, could back up Cross' version of events?"
Such a question carries within it a mischaractersation of several things at once. Mizen gave his testimony ahead of both Cross and Paul. He frankly could not know as to whether his own recollection of events would differ, in some vital area, from the testimonies to be offered later by either of those witnesses. To indicate that he might be concerned with what Paul may speak to, in corroboration of Cross, appears to imply that, in some manner, Mizen was appraised of the likely direction that Cross's testimony would progress. I should be interested if you have any evidence for this. It further seems to suggest that somewhere, nestled within the newspaper articles and as yet undetected by others, there might be some implication that one or other person was willfully deceitful in their given testimony.

"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."
This would be his testimony that was reported in the newspapers, the same of which, in the preceding paragraph, you characterised in this manner: "the newspaper articles are inconsistent"?

"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."
I agree; such unurgent behaviour would surely have demonstrated a grave negligence of his lawly obligations. If, indeed, events had occurred that way. But you are the one using the phrase 'blithely ignored'. I have offered nothing which might suggest Mizen was tardy in his response. You seem here to be arguing against an edifice that you yourself have constructed.

Yours, Caligo

Are you seriously suggesting that PC Mizen was so stupid that he would not have anticipated his evidence, to the effect that another police officer was already in attendance, wouldn't be challenged by Cross/Paul assuming it was an outrageous lie? Because, frankly, that's absurd. Or perhaps you're implying that Mizen was so incompetent that he completely forgot what was told to him and just decided to make up a story!

Are you seriously suggesting that, if Mizen was informed that there was a woman lying dead, it seriously injured, and not made aware that another officer was already in attendance, then any failure to respond immediately was not a serious dereliction of duty?

And if your not suggesting that's what happened, what exactly are you suggesting? As for Paul, we do not know what he said at the inquest. I mean, for all we know Cross could have subsequently convinced him that the victim was, indeed, not seriously injured, which is what he seemed to believe. And Paul only states that he informed Mizen what he'd seen, not what he believed, I.e. he may have been unwilling to contradict Cross, if Cross had stated the woman was simply drunk, or in a swoon, and not seriously injured, and therefore simply briefly reported the basic facts: that he'd come across a woman lying down in the street.

If you recognize that the newspaper accounts were inconsistent, then why do you argue that Cross should be believed over Mizen?

PC Mizen was a serving police officer with an impeccable record. Cross, on the other hand, was a man discovered next to a woman who may have recently been murdered. Does that prove that Cross committed murder? No. But if you don't believe that, at the very least, the fact that his story was directly contradicted by Mizen isn't at least suspicious then I'm afraid I cannot help you.

[David Orsam]

And if Lechmere told the truth, Mizen lied

That is not correct GUT, as I've already explained in this thread, describing it as a false inversion.

If Lechmere told the truth, Mizen might have lied but he also might have been mistaken, either in what he heard or as to his recollection of what he heard.