Value of a lie

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426151][QUOTE=Elamarna;426146]

So Mizen knew that none of the other PC:s was the one reported to him by Cross. Why did he then believe that there was another PC in Buck´s Row?

He didn't.

The validity in this statement seems low. "A picture" "rather" and "could be misinterpreted" "of him believing Lechmere had told him this". ?

Not at all.
My hypothesis is In part:
He told a lie, one which would be hard if not impossible to disprove.
By telling this lie he avoided other questions being asked.

Let me assure you when you see the whole hypothesis the reasoning for the lie will be very clear.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426157][QUOTE=Pierre;426151]

Not at all.
My hypothesis is In part:
He told a lie, one which would be hard if not impossible to disprove.
By telling this lie he avoided other questions being asked.

Let me assure you when you see the whole hypothesis the reasoning for the lie will be very clear.

Steve

OK!

[harry]

One question I ask is this,when did Mizen inform his superiors of his encounter with Cross and Paul.I know when he should have done,it is mentioned in the police code.Does it matter?I think so.

[Robert St Devil]

presumably his story saw the light of day after the first inquest, harry. or else... why wasn't pc mizen appearing before coroner baxter at the first inquest?

if coroner baxter had known about his story before the first inquest, i blv he would have called pc mizen, considering this entire encounter happened within five minutes of pc neil discovering polly nicholl's body.

[Elamarna]

presumably his story saw the light of day after the first inquest, harry. or else... why wasn't pc mizen appearing before coroner baxter at the first inquest?

if coroner baxter had known about his story before the first inquest, i blv he would have called pc mizen, considering this entire encounter happened within five minutes of pc neil discovering polly nicholl's body.

Harry and Robert

Good questions.

There are no sources which say this story was known before Monday 3rd, when Mizen gave his evidence. Has Pierre rightly pointed out absence of evidence is not evidence.

However if he had told his story before Neil gave his testimony on the 1st one would not expect Neil to be claiming he discovered the body.
There are newspaper reports from the 3rd ( Times & Daily News) which clearly say that on the 2nd Neil is denying that two others found the body first. Some claim this shows the Mizen story was not known on the evening of the 2nd; but there is nothing to show the timing of this. It is however likely that Neil is responding to the article in Lloyds Weekly of that morning.

It suggests that Mizen had not given his story, or at least Neil did not know it, at the time the report appearing on the 3rd was written.

Steve

[harry]

The thing I can't accept,is that Mizen would not have informed his supeiors,before finishing his shift,of the fact he(Mizen)had been absent from his beat for a significant time,due to information from two witnesses.
So the police knew that Friday morning there were two witnesses,important witnesses.Not knowing their names and having no contact information,the least I would expect of them(The Police)was to contact the press and ask that a plea be printed for those two witnesses to come forward.
Unless Mizen lied by omission.

[drstrange169]

>>... which clearly say that on the 2nd Neil is denying that two others found the body first.<<

No, Neil denies two men called him to the body. Subtle, but important difference. Neil leaves the possibility of him not being the first open.

[Elamarna]

>>... which clearly say that on the 2nd Neil is denying that two others found the body first.<<

No, Neil denies two men called him to the body. Subtle, but important difference. Neil leaves the possibility of him not being the first open.

I stand corrected

However Dusty the impression he presents is that he was alone,. This is backed by his inquest testimony the day before when he said " there was not a soul about"

Steve





Steve

[Elamarna]

Dusty I would suggest the following hypothesis for the use of the words "called to "

On Saturday there was a rumour eminating from the press that two men had called a police officer to the body. No details were given, it was a scoop for Lloyds Weekly, until the Sunday.
It was assumed that being the first officer on the scene Neil was the constable referred to in the Rumor. His response was specifically aim to refute that rumour. Mizen had said nothing by this stage.

Christer has suggested that this report is from the Sunday evening, however that appears to refer to the comments by Inspector Helson earlier in the article, not the comments of Neil, which could therefore be anytime after the inquest testimony 1st.
I say this because if the rumour was in circulation before the inquest, I would expect Baxter to have asked him about it, it was obviously important.

Steve

[Pierre]

&quot;discover&quot;

QUOTE=Elamarna;426275

Harry and Robert

Good questions.

There are no sources which say this story was known before Monday 3rd, when Mizen gave his evidence. Has Pierre rightly pointed out absence of evidence is not evidence.

However if he had told his story before Neil gave his testimony on the 1st one would not expect Neil to be claiming he discovered the body.

Dear Steve,

I want to thank you for being scientific in this discussion. It is much easier to discuss with you than with many others, who sometimes get emotional or are not able to handle the discussion at all.

Now, there is a big problem with your expression "claiming he discovered" here: There is no evidence that Neil "claimed" anything. He is actually just describing his own experience.

This has to do with the word "discover". If the use of the word was not different in 1888, you can consult the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "discover", and as you can see it has different meanings:

1 Find unexpectedly or during a search.

2 Become aware of (a fact or situation)

3 Be the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

4 Show interest in (an activity or subject) for the first time.

(Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discover)

There is no evidence that I know of that Neil used the definition in 3.

But there is evidence that he used the definition in 1.

So Neil did not need to "claim" his finding of the woman.

And there was no "claim" to be "the first finder" or "the first discoverer".

It was just a statement as in 1: Find unexpectedly or during a search.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;426275




Now, there is a big problem with your expression "claiming he discovered" here: There is no evidence that Neil "claimed" anything. He is actually just describing his own experience.

This has to do with the word "discover". If the use of the word was not different in 1888, you can consult the Oxford dictionary for the meaning of the word "discover", and as you can see it has different meanings:

1 Find unexpectedly or during a search.

2 Become aware of (a fact or situation)

3 Be the first to find or observe (a place, substance, or scientific phenomenon)

4 Show interest in (an activity or subject) for the first time.

(Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discover)

There is no evidence that I know of that Neil used the definition in 3.

But there is evidence that he used the definition in 1.

So Neil did not need to "claim" his finding of the woman.

And there was no "claim" to be "the first finder" or "the first discoverer".

It was just a statement as in 1: Find unexpectedly or during a search.

Cheers, Pierre

I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

He said he came upon the body and no one was around. To me that equates to he found and that to discovered.
He had no way of knowing if others had seen it before, but as he was not aware of it, he had not been alerted and the area was at that point empty of others and it was on his beat, he mayhave ( I know!) assumed he was the first.

Dusty raised it with me earlier and I accept my wording my not be correct or the best I could have used.

My point was to emphasise that Neil had not spoken to anyone else, certainly not the two carmen Or indeed just one of them.


Steve

[Robert St Devil]

two men were on the coroner's mind at the september 3rd inquest.
with the witness tomkins, i think baxter was trying to determine if cross and paul were with pc neil when he arrived, evidenced by his question regarding the newspaper report. he seems to be trying to determine who was where, and when bc he has the Lloyd's article in mind.
baxter calls pc mizen bc he knows mizen is the constable from the lloyd's report. which means, somebody must have known something about mizen's story before the start of the 2nd day of the inquest.

[Elamarna]

two men were on the coroner's mind at the september 3rd inquest.
with the witness tomkins, i think baxter was trying to determine if cross and paul were with pc neil when he arrived, evidenced by his question regarding the newspaper report. he seems to be trying to determine who was where, and when bc he has the Lloyd's article in mind.
baxter calls pc mizen bc he knows mizen is the constable from the lloyd's report. which means, somebody must have known something about mizen's story before the start of the 2nd day of the inquest.

Baxter asks Tomkins if there were 2 or 3 men there before him. These could not be Paul or Lechmere as Tomkins also says there were 3 or 4 policemen present.
The ambulance arrived after this, Mizen who had gone to get it must have arrived then.
If that is so, for the two men to be Paul or Lechmere, all involved must be telling untruths.

What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article; however there is no reason to suppose he knew anything about the wanted by another officer part of the story is there?


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426337]

What I am trying to say Robert, is that Baxter obviously knew Mizen must be the constable in the Lloyds article;

however there is no reason to suppose he knew anything about the wanted by another officer part of the story is there?

OK, Steve. You have a methodological problem now. There is no data for Baxter knowing that and there is no data for Baxter not knowing that.

So "no reason to suppose" can not be deduced from nothing.

I.e. you can not deduce that there was a reason or that there was not a reason from nothing.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;426317]I think we are debating semantics here Pierre.

He said he came upon the body and no one was around. To me that equates to he found and that to discovered.
He had no way of knowing if others had seen it before, but as he was not aware of it, he had not been alerted and the area was at that point empty of others and it was on his beat, he mayhave ( I know!) assumed he was the first.

Not semantics, interpretation. Very different concepts here, Steve. First or not first. "May have" is useless, as you obviously know.

My point was to emphasise that Neil had not spoken to anyone else, certainly not the two carmen Or indeed just one of them.

Dear Steve, what does this mean: "certainly not" "Or indeed just one of them"?

First certain then "or" ?

Certain of "not two" but then an alternative one? Why?

I think this is getting less and less reliable.

I hope not based on estimation of minutes as well.