Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[FrankO]

Hi all,

In the hope of getting a better view of it, I’ve tried to reconstruct Mizen’s inquest statement using the 10 newspaper snippets that I could find representing his inquest appearance. The blue-coloured text is what I added.

Feel free to comment.

Police constable Jonas Mizen), 56 H, said - On Friday morning last, at about a quarter to four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
*
The man, whose name is Charles Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question. He came into the courtroom in a coarse sacking apron, appeared to be a carman and he had come from Buck's-row.
*
I asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there when you saw this policeman for the first time?
Mizen - No one at all, Sir.

The Coroner – Did you notice any blood then?
Mizen - There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

The blood appeared fresh. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
Mizen - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

The other man appeared to be working with Cross.

The Coroner – Where did Cross and the other man go to (after you spoke to Cross)?
Mizen - Both of them/both (afterwards) went down Hanbury-street.

The Coroner – Did you make haste after you finished talking to Cross?
Mizen – I was engaged in knocking people up when Cross spoke to me. He told me a policeman wanted me. He did not say anything about murder or suicide.

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Mizen - No. I finished knocking at the one place where I was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

I'm sure that a question was asked right after the question if there was someone in company with Cross, the answer to which included the words "went down Hanbury Street". As there are 3 newspapers that printed these words and 2 of those wrote that "both" went down Hanbury Street, it seems fair to suppose that the question indeed included both men, not just Paul.

The best,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Hi all,

In the hope of getting a better view of it, I’ve tried to reconstruct Mizen’s inquest statement using the 10 newspaper snippets that I could find representing his inquest appearance. The blue-coloured text is what I added.

Feel free to comment.

Police constable Jonas Mizen), 56 H, said - On Friday morning last, at about a quarter to four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
*
The man, whose name is Charles Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question. He came into the courtroom in a coarse sacking apron, appeared to be a carman and he had come from Buck's-row.
*
I asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there when you saw this policeman for the first time?
Mizen - No one at all, Sir.

The Coroner – Did you notice any blood then?
Mizen - There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

The blood appeared fresh. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
Mizen - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

The other man appeared to be working with Cross.

The Coroner – Where did Cross and the other man go to (after you spoke to Cross)?
Mizen - Both of them/both (afterwards) went down Hanbury-street.

The Coroner – Did you make haste after you finished talking to Cross?
Mizen – I was engaged in knocking people up when Cross spoke to me. He told me a policeman wanted me. He did not say anything about murder or suicide.

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
Mizen - No. I finished knocking at the one place where I was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

I'm sure that a question was asked right after the question if there was someone in company with Cross, the answer to which included the words "went down Hanbury Street". As there are 3 newspapers that printed these words and 2 of those wrote that "both" went down Hanbury Street, it seems fair to suppose that the question indeed included both men, not just Paul.

The best,
Frank

Hi Frank that seems very good on the whole, however I would question the timing of the question on the bleeding.

I used 12 reports, some of which do not cover the whole testimony.

The reports suggest that on arrival he was sent to get the ambulance, and on returning with it assisted removing body and his description of the bleeding is from this time period such is supported by reports in the Star and Evening Post 3rd and Morning Adveriser and Evening Standard 4th.

Only one of the 12 reports is different and may be interpreted as being from before the ambulance, The Echo 3rd. However this report contains no account about assisting in removing the body and it maybe that as been excised by the editor of the report.

While we may have used different reports can I ask which reports place the question at the earlier stage apart from that in the Echo.

Very useful work Frank


Steve

[FrankO]

Thanks for your feedback, Steve!

I used 12 reports, some of which do not cover the whole testimony.

Could you post the one by the Evening Post of 3 September? Unlike the Evening Standard of 4 September, I can't find it.

While we may have used different reports can I ask which reports place the question at the earlier stage apart from that in the Echo.

It's indeed the Echo that does that (and only the Echo):
"...Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

I figured that, since Baxter's question above refers to when Mizen arrives at the crime scene for the first time and the answer to that question is immediately followed by Mizen's remarks on the blood, that this also took place when Mizen arrived at the scene for the first time.

Cheers,
Frank

[Elamarna]

Thanks for your feedback, Steve!
Could you post the one by the Evening Post of 3 September? Unlike the Evening Standard of 4 September, I can't find it.
It's indeed the Echo that does that (and only the Echo):
"...Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

I figured that, since Baxter's question above refers to when Mizen arrives at the crime scene for the first time and the answer to that question is immediately followed by Mizen's remarks on the blood, that this also took place when Mizen arrived at the scene for the first time.

Cheers,
Frank

Here you go Frank

Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck.


Given the missing comments about assisting loading the body, i have concluded the echo has edited out and combined the response. Such is in keeping with the other reports.
But who knows.
The later descriptions, when moving the body, fit the medical facts better it must be said..
But it remains inconclusive, although i think probability argues for when he assists rather than first arrival.

I must say overall a very fair attempt to reconstruct Mizen's testimony.

Cheers

Steve

[Fisherman]

Here you go Frank

Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck.


Given the missing comments about assisting loading the body, i have concluded the echo has edited out and combined the response. Such is in keeping with the other reports.
But who knows.
The later descriptions, when moving the body, fit the medical facts better it must be said..
But it remains inconclusive, although i think probability argues for when he assists rather than first arrival.

I must say overall a very fair attempt to reconstruct Mizen's testimony.

Cheers

Steve

Yes, Franks reconstruction seems a very fair one, I agree.

But I don´t agree at all with the idea that Mizens comments about how the blood would have been tied to when he helped loading the body onto the ambulance.

The idea that if more papers have a wording, then that wording is the correct one, is not something I would ascribe to myself other than on a very general level.

Only the Morning Advertiser disclosed that Mizen did not lay the text out in detail about how close Paul and Lechmere were, but instead only answered "yes" to a question we cannot know.

So one newspaper can be more worth than eleven others that miss out on such an imperative matter.

In the case at hand, just as Frank says, the order of things implies that Mizen answered about the occasion when he first arrived at the body. And Mizen points out that the blood appeared fresh, something he would reasonably not say with the background knowledge that the body had been cut at least half an hour earlier. And he does not say that the blood started to flow as the body was lifted onto the ambulance, he says that there "was blood running from the throat towards the gutter".

All in all, the way I see it, the much better suggestion is that he spoke of the first time he saw the body. And far from saying that the Echo must be wrong since it is in minority, we may need to be thankful that the Echo laid things down in a clearer way than some of the rest.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your feedback, Steve!
Could you post the one by the Evening Post of 3 September? Unlike the Evening Standard of 4 September, I can't find it.
It's indeed the Echo that does that (and only the Echo):
"...Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross."

I figured that, since Baxter's question above refers to when Mizen arrives at the crime scene for the first time and the answer to that question is immediately followed by Mizen's remarks on the blood, that this also took place when Mizen arrived at the scene for the first time.

Cheers,
Frank

Yes, I think Baxter referred Mizen back to the earlier stages when the PC went over it too fast, starting to speak of fetching the ambulance and returning with it.

This is where I believe the other papers failed, not clarifying this revisiting of the earlier stages secured by Baxter.

If we look at the Daily News, they have the same backtracking as the Echo, but with no explanation:

The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.

Here, it is not clarified that the reason Mizen said that Neil was alone with the body as Lechmere first arrived, was that Baxter nudged Mizen back to that stage by asking him about it. Then Mizen jumps back into his narrative, picking up where he had left off, and to a degree the whole of the sequence becomes blurred.

The Daily Telegraph reports like this:

When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body., thus making things a bit easier to understand, but leaving out the passage of lifting Nichols onto the stretcher, and omitting to clarify the coroners role.

Then we have one of the papers I mean really blur the picture, the Morning Advertiser:
I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Here, the passage where Baxter redirects Mizen to the earlier events have gone lost, and therefore what seems to be an unbroken narrative is in all probability deceiving us.

There are a number of layers involved:

1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it.

The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2.

The Morning Advertiser has it 1-3-4-2.

Only the Echo has a clear and logical sequence, EXPLAINING why the order never turned out 1-2-3-4, not even with themselves, who had it 1-3-2, but were able to clarify how it actually went down.

[Elamarna]

Yes, I think Baxter referred Mizen back to the earlier stages when the PC went over it too fast, starting to speak of fetching the ambulance and returning with it.

This is where I believe the other papers failed, not clarifying this revisiting of the earlier stages secured by Baxter.

If we look at the Daily News, they have the same backtracking as the Echo, but with no explanation:

The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.

Here, it is not clarified that the reason Mizen said that Neil was alone with the body as Lechmere first arrived, was that Baxter nudged Mizen back to that stage by asking him about it. Then Mizen jumps back into his narrative, picking up where he had left off, and to a degree the whole of the sequence becomes blurred.

The Daily Telegraph reports like this:

When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body., thus making things a bit easier to understand, but leaving out the passage of lifting Nichols onto the stretcher, and omitting to clarify the coroners role.

Then we have one of the papers I mean really blur the picture, the Morning Advertiser:
I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Here, the passage where Baxter redirects Mizen to the earlier events have gone lost, and therefore what seems to be an unbroken narrative is in all probability deceiving us.

There are a number of layers involved:

1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it.

The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2.

The Morning Advertiser has it 1-3-4-2.

Only the Echo has a clear and logical sequence, EXPLAINING why the order never turned out 1-2-3-4, not even with themselves, who had it 1-3-2, but were able to clarify how it actually went down.

Fish

You left out:

the Star which has it 1-3-4-2

And the Daily Post which has it 1-3-4-2

And the Evening Standard which again has it 1-3-4-2

You are incorrect about the Daily News, it does not mention the blood at all, so it read 1-3-4

that of course reduces the likehood that the account also backtracks.

That leaves just one paper, which leaves the loading on to the ambulance out, placing the question of bleeding at the earlier point, the Echo.

To acceot the Echo when the vastly overwhelming number of reports say contrary seems somewhat odd.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, I think Baxter referred Mizen back to the earlier stages when the PC went over it too fast, starting to speak of fetching the ambulance and returning with it.

This is where I believe the other papers failed, not clarifying this revisiting of the earlier stages secured by Baxter.

If we look at the Daily News, they have the same backtracking as the Echo, but with no explanation:

The witness went to Buck's row, where Police constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body. On returning with the ambulance he helped to put the deceased upon it.

Here, it is not clarified that the reason Mizen said that Neil was alone with the body as Lechmere first arrived, was that Baxter nudged Mizen back to that stage by asking him about it. Then Mizen jumps back into his narrative, picking up where he had left off, and to a degree the whole of the sequence becomes blurred.

The Daily Telegraph reports like this:

When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body., thus making things a bit easier to understand, but leaving out the passage of lifting Nichols onto the stretcher, and omitting to clarify the coroners role.

Then we have one of the papers I mean really blur the picture, the Morning Advertiser:
I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

Here, the passage where Baxter redirects Mizen to the earlier events have gone lost, and therefore what seems to be an unbroken narrative is in all probability deceiving us.

There are a number of layers involved:

1. Mizen goes to Bucks Row.
2. Mizen sees that there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.
3. Mizen is sent for an ambulance.
4. Mizen returns with the ambulance and helps placing the corpse on it.

The Daily News has it 1-3-2-4.

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2.

The Morning Advertiser has it 1-3-4-2.

Only the Echo has a clear and logical sequence, EXPLAINING why the order never turned out 1-2-3-4, not even with themselves, who had it 1-3-2, but were able to clarify how it actually went down.

Sorry to mention this

Your also incorrect about the Telegraph, it too never mentions the blood. Just like the Daily News

Given thats 2 accounts which you have posted which do not mention bleeding, but which you say do, could you please exaplain that obvious inaccuracy.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, Franks reconstruction seems a very fair one, I agree.

But I don´t agree at all with the idea that Mizens comments about how the blood would have been tied to when he helped loading the body onto the ambulance.

The idea that if more papers have a wording, then that wording is the correct one, is not something I would ascribe to myself other than on a very general level.

Only the Morning Advertiser disclosed that Mizen did not lay the text out in detail about how close Paul and Lechmere were, but instead only answered "yes" to a question we cannot know.

So one newspaper can be more worth than eleven others that miss out on such an imperative matter.

In the case at hand, just as Frank says, the order of things implies that Mizen answered about the occasion when he first arrived at the body. And Mizen points out that the blood appeared fresh, something he would reasonably not say with the background knowledge that the body had been cut at least half an hour earlier. And he does not say that the blood started to flow as the body was lifted onto the ambulance, he says that there "was blood running from the throat towards the gutter".

All in all, the way I see it, the much better suggestion is that he spoke of the first time he saw the body. And far from saying that the Echo must be wrong since it is in minority, we may need to be thankful that the Echo laid things down in a clearer way than some of the rest.

Its again about evidence to suggest the others are wrong, provide such please?

The Echo, misses an important part of the narrative, to which the comment about bleeding fits very well.
Given that we have no record of any question, to select a single source which supports to a very limited extent ( and it is very limited) a pet theory is subject to questions as to why such a source is deemed to more likely be the correct version.


Steve

[Elamarna]

This is actually very important .

We have five sources which mention the bleeding .

In addition we have 2 sources which give the testimony about Mizen's arrival in Bucks Row which do not mention the blood.

Of the 5 which do, four give the whole account leaving out nothing,.

However Fisherman is promoting we accept the 5th which is an incomplete report, it omits the assisting of the body onto the ambulance. That omission is reported in the other 4 reports and comes directly before the comment from Mizen on bleeding.

Yet we are asked to accept such is the most likely to be correct. Of course such a conclusion has nothing to do witha desire to have Mizen support the "Blood Evidence ".

Of course the irony is that even if we accept the Echo, it does not support the "Blood Evidence " in any way what so ever.



Steve

[Elamarna]

This is actually very important .

We have five sources which mention the bleeding .

In addition we have 2 sources which give the testimony about Mizen's arrival in Bucks Row which do not mention the blood.

Of the 5 which do, four give the whole account leaving out nothing,.

However Fisherman is promoting we accept the 5th which is an incomplete report, it omits the assisting of the body onto the ambulance. That omission is reported in the other 4 reports and comes directly before the comment from Mizen on bleeding.

Yet we are asked to accept such is the most likely to be correct. Of course such a conclusion has nothing to do witha desire to have Mizen support the "Blood Evidence ".

Of course the irony is that even if we accept the Echo, it does not support the "Blood Evidence " in any way what so ever.



Steve

Any comments anyone?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Nichols' body was found in J Division.

PC Mizen [H Division] fetched an ambulance [handcart] from Bethnal Green [police] station [J Division].

The body was then conveyed to Pavilion Yard [in H Division], just off Old Montague Street.

Why wasn't the body taken to J Division's Bethnal Green mortuary?

Who returned the empty ambulance from Pavilion Yard to Bethnal Green [police] station?

Did H Division not possess its own ambulance?

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Nichols' body was found in J Division.

PC Mizen [H Division] fetched an ambulance [handcart] from Bethnal Green [police] station [J Division].

The body was then conveyed to Pavilion Yard [in H Division], just off Old Montague Street.

Why wasn't the body taken to J Division's Bethnal Green mortuary?

Who returned the empty ambulance from Pavilion Yard to Bethnal Green [police] station?

Did H Division not possess its own ambulance?

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Interesting questions to which I doubt we have conclusive answers.

However, the removal of the body to the nearby Mortuary, may just have been due to distance.
It is also clear that the senior officer onsite at the time, Kirby, allowed Llewellyn to issue instructions which were not his to give. The removal should not have occurred until an Inspector arrived at the scene, maybe Llewellyn didn't fancy a longer walk than to Pavilion Yard.

With regards to who took it back to Bethnal Green, probably one of the J Division officers who was at the mortuary when Sprating arrived, apparently with Thain. So could have been Thain, Kirby or some unidentified officer.

Steve

[Simon Wood]

Thank you, Steve.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Here's another question that falls under the Mizen banner.

According to official testimony, at 3.45 am Robert Paul was walking up Buck’s Row on his way to work; Charles Cross was standing by Polly's body; PC Neil was discovering Polly’s body; PC Thain was being signalled by PC Neil; and PC Mizen was encountering Cross and Paul 300 yards away at the corner of Bakers Row and Old Montague Street. I've heard all the arguments about public clocks being inaccurate and people not carrying watches, so would appreciate any explanation of how all these people quite independently agreed upon 3.45 am.

Good luck with this one.

Regards,

Simon