[QUOTE=Elamarna;427548]
The external function of the source from the 19th is not the same as the external function(s) of the newspaper articles from the inquest.
The main content in the source from the 19th is about the life of the victim.
The beginning of the source is just a short presentation of the finding of her.
Therefore we can not expect this source to contain a detailed description for what was said at the inquest and what the police did, if anything, about the issues at that inquest.
We can not expect judicial discussions about testimonies/ problems with witnesses / problems with issues concearning their stories and so on and so forth.
It is a short historical descriptive report from the perspective of Swanson where he presented some dates and persons relevant to the case.
In this report the finders and the finding of the victim are just mentioned as a brief introduction.
It is not "airbrushed out", i.e. there was not strategy for removing evidence from the report. If there was, there must be traces of it. Are there any traces of it?
No. It is a plain simple description where the finding of the victim is a minor issue.
Dear Steve, I see the word "if" and I see the word "probably". And I also see the "would not". What is all that supposed to mean?
They can be what you call "in line" with it and still have no connection to it. I do not think I am misinterpreting what you said. You have postulated that the police did something which led to the testimony of Mizen not becoming an issue for discussion, have you not?
And you spoke about loyalties and disloyalties and lies.
I have not postulated that the police lied or that they "airbrushed out" anything. There is no sources for it!
Let me compare to a case where I do think it is relevant to postulate that the authorities did airbrush out something. It is the Eddowes inquest, where Lawende was told by the coroner to not give his evidence to the court - unless the jury desired it.
That is an active airbrushing out, and there are sources for it.
We see nothing like this in the case of the Nichols inquest. On the contrary. Cross was allowed to give his evidence and the coroner did not stop it:
"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."
(http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html)
"IF"! Again.
And in the wrong context. He would not provoke a question "just because he heard" what was said. The questions were asked by the coroner and the jury.
And on the 17th they did not ask Paul about this, since no one had any interest in such a question. And Mizen himself was not there.
I am actually very tempted now to say that the police were very sloppy. They could have gotten more information from the inquest than they did. But such ideas just leads me to think that the police were not sloppy but corrupt. And for this there is no evidence in that particular case.
A conclusion based on loyalties and disloyalties and lies? No sources.
I donīt know. They are just hypotheses.
I donīt know if that is what I think. I donīt think I think anything about that right now. It is not important to me. But this silly story about the carman being the killer is important to me. Since it is wrong.
I can tell you what I think. I think Cross lied. I think this because he gave half the truth about his name and the whole truth about his work and his own address. I also think this because the cuts on the abdomen were not extensive. So I think Cross saw the killer.
That was also one of the reasons for the choice of a less risky murder site on the 8th September.
Which reminds me of todayīs date.
So all of it was between Cross and the killer. Obviously, there are sources for such an hypothesis. Cross did contradict Mizen. Paul gave a contradictory interview with tendencies. Mizen did not say he spoke to Paul. The cuts on the abdomen were less extensive than on Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. And so on and so forth.
But is was not between Cross and the police or Mizen and the police. Not without sources.
Pierre
My dear Pierre I have spent sometime considering how to reply to this.
Firstly let's be clear in the Police report of the 19th September there is a description of the meeting between Mizen and the Carmen. There is no mention of Mizen's account at all. It is not even dismissed it is just airbrushed out.
Firstly let's be clear in the Police report of the 19th September there is a description of the meeting between Mizen and the Carmen. There is no mention of Mizen's account at all. It is not even dismissed it is just airbrushed out.
The main content in the source from the 19th is about the life of the victim.
The beginning of the source is just a short presentation of the finding of her.
Therefore we can not expect this source to contain a detailed description for what was said at the inquest and what the police did, if anything, about the issues at that inquest.
We can not expect judicial discussions about testimonies/ problems with witnesses / problems with issues concearning their stories and so on and so forth.
It is a short historical descriptive report from the perspective of Swanson where he presented some dates and persons relevant to the case.
In this report the finders and the finding of the victim are just mentioned as a brief introduction.
It is not "airbrushed out", i.e. there was not strategy for removing evidence from the report. If there was, there must be traces of it. Are there any traces of it?
No. It is a plain simple description where the finding of the victim is a minor issue.
Second Paul is not answering the Police on 17th he is giving evidence at the inquest, why you keep introducing them I fail to see. If the Police wished to speak to him they probably already had. They would not be relying on the inquest to finalise their reports.
In fact 3 of those 5 points you list are inline with my initial comment, so I fail to see the problem you have. Perhaps you are misinterpreting what I said.
And you spoke about loyalties and disloyalties and lies.
I have not postulated that the police lied or that they "airbrushed out" anything. There is no sources for it!
Let me compare to a case where I do think it is relevant to postulate that the authorities did airbrush out something. It is the Eddowes inquest, where Lawende was told by the coroner to not give his evidence to the court - unless the jury desired it.
That is an active airbrushing out, and there are sources for it.
We see nothing like this in the case of the Nichols inquest. On the contrary. Cross was allowed to give his evidence and the coroner did not stop it:
"A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?
Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."
(http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_nichols.html)
I agree his actual testimony is very sparse, and a very different tone to the press article.
And yes that is the whole point, why is he not asked if he heard what was said?
And yes that is the whole point, why is he not asked if he heard what was said?
And in the wrong context. He would not provoke a question "just because he heard" what was said. The questions were asked by the coroner and the jury.
And on the 17th they did not ask Paul about this, since no one had any interest in such a question. And Mizen himself was not there.
I am actually very tempted now to say that the police were very sloppy. They could have gotten more information from the inquest than they did. But such ideas just leads me to think that the police were not sloppy but corrupt. And for this there is no evidence in that particular case.
My view as originally posted was that he was not asked as a conclusion had already been made on the exchange, as suggested by the POLICE report, No additional information was needed. Which is a variation on your point 3.
Your points four and five are equally valid and are useful as I write up.
I believe the Police wanted the story to go away, as do you I think,
just for different reasons to those I happen to think apply
That was also one of the reasons for the choice of a less risky murder site on the 8th September.
Which reminds me of todayīs date.
So all of it was between Cross and the killer. Obviously, there are sources for such an hypothesis. Cross did contradict Mizen. Paul gave a contradictory interview with tendencies. Mizen did not say he spoke to Paul. The cuts on the abdomen were less extensive than on Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. And so on and so forth.
But is was not between Cross and the police or Mizen and the police. Not without sources.
Pierre
Comment