The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Elamarna]

Thanks Steve,

I really admire you patience with these terrible sources.

Pierre

Well if we want to research the issues Pierre we have little option do we but to use what we have?
However it does mean that we must weight a degree of uncertainty into how we read, and accept that we will never have a cast iron case if using only such sources.
We do have a few more reliable sources in Bucks Row. There are several official police reports which are better to work with. They will appear sometime next week.

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

It's only an hypothesis when I present it as such in part 3.

But seriously it based on my assements of the various sources, looking at all 3 of the participants in the event. It appears that Paul in the early account in Lloyds wishes to be the centre of attention, this changes after the Lloyds article, which must be viewed with great caution in itself.
Has I have said before, I feel that we can only accept it when corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

Hope that supplies an answer..

Steve

Thanks Steve,

I really admire you patience with these terrible sources.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

thatīs not a view, thatīs an hypothesis.

So, how does that hypothesis of yours explain the early source where Paul is described as having talked to the police by himself while Cross waited in Buckīs Row and how does that hypothesis explain the active role of Paul, as opposed to the passive role in your hypothesis?

Cheers, Pierre

Pierre

It's only an hypothesis when I present it as such in part 3.

But seriously it based on my assements of the various sources, looking at all 3 of the participants in the event. It appears that Paul in the early account in Lloyds wishes to be the centre of attention, this changes after the Lloyds article, which must be viewed with great caution in itself.
Has I have said before, I feel that we can only accept it when corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen.

Hope that supplies an answer..


Steve

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=drstrange169;424996





Very, very important point!

Pierre

Agreed. However we can only use what we have.

When I go onto Mitre square, part of the work will involved comparing the original to the paper reports.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=drstrange169;424996

The problem for us, is that they may have been asked and simply not reported.

I've been comparing newspaper reports with Old Bailey transcripts recently and the newspapers leave a lot to be desired when it comes to coverage.

Very, very important point!

Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre the view I am looking at is that he stayed mainly out of the conversation as such letting Lechmere do most of the talking but may have chipped in with comments as Lechmere describes. Let's call him a passive part of the meeting, there, listening and making comments but not taking a full part. Possibly becausebof a dislike of the police.

Steve

Hi Steve,

thatīs not a view, thatīs an hypothesis.

So, how does that hypothesis of yours explain the early source where Paul is described as having talked to the police by himself while Cross waited in Buckīs Row and how does that hypothesis explain the active role of Paul, as opposed to the passive role in your hypothesis?

Cheers, Pierre

[drstrange169]

>Still it seems clear that Neil was not aware on Saturday or probably on Sunday of what Mizen would say.<<

Absolutely!

[Elamarna]

Whoops, just remembered, Spratling arrived at Buck's Row about 4:30 and the body had gone.

So that put a maximum of under 3/4 of an hour before Mizen was back on home territory.

Dusty


Yes around 45 seems reasonable. Of course it depends on how long he was at the mortuary before resuming duty so maybe 50 at absolute max.

Steve

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=drstrange169;424968:



And also the sources indicate that Paul was waiting for Cross while he was speaking to Mizen since Cross is described to have passed in company with another man, hypothetically Paul, and leaving with him after having spoken to Mizen.

This can explain the tendency Steve has found in the earliest sources where Paul is described as having talked to the police himself.

Then his motive was to make up for standing aside and waiting for Cross.

Pierre

Pierre the view I am looking at is that he stayed mainly out of the conversation as such letting Lechmere do most of the talking but may have chipped in with comments as Lechmere describes. Let's call him a passive part of the meeting, there, listening and making comments but not taking a full part. Possibly becausebof a dislike of the police.

Steve

[Elamarna]

As Mizen was away from his beat for a lengthy time,he would have had to report the incident and explain to his superiors before leaving for home that morning.Therefor the police must have had a knowledge of Cross and Paul meeting with Mizen,at an early time, and have asked for particulars of them. Wonder how they reacted when Mizen said there wasn't anything,as he hadn't asked. Any idea Steve,how long Mizen was away from his beat?

First point Harry, did he need to mention Paul and Neil at all. Neil was clearly claiming he had summoned a passing officer, maybe that was enough to explain his absence.

How long ? At least 40 minutes probably more. He went to get ambulance and then helped load it. To be honest I have not calculated but can check over next few days.

Steve.

[Elamarna]

>The practice used to be that when a number of police officers were involved in the same incident they would also sit down together and write up their reports to ensure they were all singing from the same song sheet.<<

Sounds plausible, but, just not in this case, as Mizen was from a different division.

Still it seems clear that Neil was not aware on Saturday or probably on Sunday of what Mizen would say.


Steve

[Elamarna]

>>According to Mizen only one Carman spoke to him<<

Ah! careful here.

He didn't say only one carman spoke to him, he simply talked about one carman, there's a difference. In the begining he didn't even acknowledge Paul's existence.

After Mizen had given his evidence about the encounter, Baxter had to ask him if there was another carman with Cross.

Mizen do not explicitly say Paul did not speak, he simply did not mention Paul at all. It is entirely possible Paul also spoke to Mizen.

Of course, that might also mean Paul didn't speak, but since both Paul and Cross say he did, we have to consider it a likely option.

Hi Dusty being yes perhaps implied would have been better.
I am of the opinion that he probably said the odd word as per Lechmere's testimony.

Steve

[Pierre]

According to Mizen only one Carman spoke to him

QUOTE=drstrange169;424968:

Ah! careful here.

He didn't say only one carman spoke to him, he simply talked about one carman, there's a difference. In the begining he didn't even acknowledge Paul's existence.

After Mizen had given his evidence about the encounter, Baxter had to ask him if there was another carman with Cross.

Mizen do not explicitly say Paul did not speak, he simply did not mention Paul at all. It is entirely possible Paul also spoke to Mizen.

Of course, that might also mean Paul didn't speak, but since both Paul and Cross say he did, we have to consider it a likely option.

And also the sources indicate that Paul was waiting for Cross while he was speaking to Mizen since Cross is described to have passed in company with another man, hypothetically Paul, and leaving with him after having spoken to Mizen.

This can explain the tendency Steve has found in the earliest sources where Paul is described as having talked to the police himself.

Then his motive was to make up for standing aside and waiting for Cross.

Pierre

[GUT]

>>... inquest example of clarification questions needing to be asked of witnesses but they were not.<<

The problem for us, is that they may have been asked and simply not reported.

I've been comparing newspaper reports with Old Bailey transcripts recently and the newspapers leave a lot to be desired when it comes to coverage.

True.

I'd also add that a lot of questions that "should be asked" aren't.

[drstrange169]

>>... inquest example of clarification questions needing to be asked of witnesses but they were not.<<

The problem for us, is that they may have been asked and simply not reported.

I've been comparing newspaper reports with Old Bailey transcripts recently and the newspapers leave a lot to be desired when it comes to coverage.