The Bucks Row Project part 2

[Trevor Marriott]

>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.

This also highlights another inquest example of clarification questions needing to be asked of witnesses but they were not. There are numerous similar examples throughout all of the different inquests.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[drstrange169]

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.

[drstrange169]

Roughly 8 minutes to fetch the ambulance, unspecified time at Bethnal Green police station explaining why he was there organising "J" division cops to acompany him back and getting permission to take the ambulance. Roughly 8 minutes getting back. Waiting for the OK to put the body on the ambulance and then taking the body to the mortuary which was on his beat.

Very minimum 30 minutes, probably longer.

[harry]

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?

[drstrange169]

>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.

[drstrange169]

>>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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps if you get around to doing all the murders in the same way you could get them together in a collection?

Great work though. You've earned a pint or three in the 'Bells.' Maybe treat yourself to a double Laphroaig

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I just wanted to add my own appreciation for this great piece of work. Getting everything together in one place then highlighting and analysing any discrepancies or unanswered questions helps us all get a closer inderstanding of what went on and when and who said what etc. I wonder if you are heartily sick of Bucks Row yet

Hi Herlock.
Not yet. It turns up something new most days.
Thank you for the kind words.

Already started my next project. Doing much the same for Mitre Square. But that will be sometime next year I feel before I start to post on that.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Geoff,

thanks for the encouragement

Wont be anything definite until this is completed, should finish posting before this time next week, then i wait for any comments before finishing part 3.

Comments are good, Dusty pointed out a mistake and an omission which i have corrected on my master copies.

Maybe end of September, but more likely end October.


steve

Hi Steve,

I just wanted to add my own appreciation for this great piece of work. Getting everything together in one place then highlighting and analysing any discrepancies or unanswered questions helps us all get a closer inderstanding of what went on and when and who said what etc. I wonder if you are heartily sick of Bucks Row yet

I look forward to your next post. Give your brain a rest for a while

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;424908

Hi Pierre

Fair questions.
There is little I am prepared to disclose in public at present, something I am sure you understand.
However I will make the following comments

Hi Steve,

many thanks.

1. I do not nessicary believe he carried on knocking up. He may have done say 1 more than he admited; but I see no evidence for such other than a gap in the timings which may have other explanations.

2.he was possibly concerned with public perception and how it would reflect on him and indeed his career.

He was part of a murder inquest reported in the papers so of course.

3. Bias ? Possibly we all have them. But given 2 months back I had a different take on the issue, I think it is less likely to be true on this occasion than it may have been. Indeed I had great difficulty in convincing myself that it was a serious possibility.
It would be far easier to have stuck to the line of "there was a misunderstanding " than to advance on the course I am.

That sounds very good.

By attempting I mean I believe he wanted his actions to be accepted as correct without several questions being asked. They never were asked and so I postulate that he was successful.

OK. It sounds as if you mean he wanted to avoid more questions.

Your questions keep me on my toes and with others I shall get from all will mean I should be able to get a good part 3.

Many thanks

Steve

Thanks again, Steve.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;424885



Hi Steve,

A tendency is always the result of a motive.

When we analyze historical sources, we construct motive explanations.

Motive explanations are directed forward in time, i.e. the motive is to acchieve something forward in time.

Very often you can describe motives with expressions like "the king wanted to...and therefore he...", "Mizen wanted to...and therefore he said...".

In this case you say that the statement of Mizen has a tendency. And then you write:

"He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty".

Is this a motive explanation - or is it part of the tendency?

If it is a motive explanation you have this assumption:

Model A)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

If it is part of a tendency you have:

Model B)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil and he also attempted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty - what was the motive for that? (Rhetorical question to point out this methodology of source criticicm).

Also, the word "attempted" is used by you but it is not clear why or how it is connected, if it is to the tendency criticism:

It can mean an honest attempt without a motive and it can mean an attempt to acchieve something in the future, i.e. a motive. Which is it, and what do you base a motive explanation on, if so?

Now, the third question. Letīs say that you have Model A):

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

Now, say that I think that there is a tendency in your text here, when you write about a tendency and an "attempt"!

Sorry for this but I have to ask you. Bias, you know.

Letīs say that I think that your own tendency is to establish that Mizen was not telling the truth, since he continued a bit to knock up, and that you want to establish this by using the word "attempt". In that case:

How can you know - and on what data can you establish it - that your postulate about an attempt is not false, since every PC wanted to do his duty and let people know that they did their duty?

How can you know it was a motive especially in that situation (external source criticism now) where PC Mizen was sworn or going to be sworn and to be part of an inquest?

I could also say:

"Show me one PC testifying at a (murder) inquest who did not want people to think they did their duty!".

So the tendency - is it a tendency in the sources?

Just asking before you start to establish historical facts on it.

Cheers, Pierre

Hi Pierre


Fair questions.
There is little I am prepared to disclose in public at present, something I am sure you understand.
However I will make the following comments

1. I do not nessicary believe he carried on knocking up. He may have done say 1 more than he admited; but I see no evidence for such other than a gap in the timings which may have other explanations.

2.he was possibly concerned with public perception and how it would reflect on him and indeed his career.

3. Bias ? Possibly we all have them. But given 2 months back I had a different take on the issue, I think it is less likely to be true on this occasion than it may have been. Indeed I had great difficulty in convincing myself that it was a serious possibility.
It would be far easier to have stuck to the line of "there was a misunderstanding " than to advance on the course I am.

By attempting I mean I believe he wanted his actions to be accepted as correct without several questions being asked. They never were asked and so I postulate that he was successful.

Your questions keep me on my toes and with others I shall get from all will mean I should be able to get a good part 3.


Many thanks


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;424885

Is there a tendency in his testimony?

Yes in that he says went at once and straight to Neil, does not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

Hi Steve,

A tendency is always the result of a motive.

When we analyze historical sources, we construct motive explanations.

Motive explanations are directed forward in time, i.e. the motive is to acchieve something forward in time.

Very often you can describe motives with expressions like "the king wanted to...and therefore he...", "Mizen wanted to...and therefore he said...".

In this case you say that the statement of Mizen has a tendency. And then you write:

"He attempts to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty".

Is this a motive explanation - or is it part of the tendency?

If it is a motive explanation you have this assumption:

Model A)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

If it is part of a tendency you have:

Model B)

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil and he also attempted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty - what was the motive for that? (Rhetorical question to point out this methodology of source criticicm).

Also, the word "attempted" is used by you but it is not clear why or how it is connected, if it is to the tendency criticism:

It can mean an honest attempt without a motive and it can mean an attempt to acchieve something in the future, i.e. a motive. Which is it, and what do you base a motive explanation on, if so?

Now, the third question. Letīs say that you have Model A):

Tendency: Mizen said he went at once and straight to Neil and did not mention he was signalled to by Neil.

Motive: Mizen wanted to portray himself as fully conforming to his duty.

Now, say that I think that there is a tendency in your text here, when you write about a tendency and an "attempt"!

Sorry for this but I have to ask you. Bias, you know.

Letīs say that I think that your own tendency is to establish that Mizen was not telling the truth, since he continued a bit to knock up, and that you want to establish this by using the word "attempt". In that case:

How can you know - and on what data can you establish it - that your postulate about an attempt is not false, since every PC wanted to do his duty and let people know that they did their duty?

How can you know it was a motive especially in that situation (external source criticism now) where PC Mizen was sworn or going to be sworn and to be part of an inquest?

I could also say:

"Show me one PC testifying at a (murder) inquest who did not want people to think they did their duty!".

So the tendency - is it a tendency in the sources?

Just asking before you start to establish historical facts on it.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Have you analyzed the statement about the beat being very short, quickly walked over and occupying not more than 12 minutes, as in article 8a?

Cheers, Pierre

I have done for part 3.

I think there is a case that it may be a report of an old beat. The echo article of the 21st gives the impression that following Tabram beats were enlarged.

I will give a full anaylise of all options in part 3. However it's fair to say I go with the Echo 21st route mainly because of timing issues all of which are covered as well.

However it should be noted a short route will not have a great effect on what time Neil finds the body. Oddly enough a shorter route probably extends the time rather than shortening it



Steve

[Pierre]

Hi Steve,

Have you analyzed the statement about the beat being very short, quickly walked over and occupying not more than 12 minutes, as in article 8a?

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Just seen a mistake in part 5 Mizen.

I said that report 12 said 3.45.

In fact it says a quarter to one and this must be a typo obviously in the original report.

Steve