Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Sam Flynn]

Nice one, Bridewell!

[Bridewell]

I've just spent about half an hour looking through my copy of "The Ultimate" at times given by police witnesses in (mainly) inquest testimony and also those given by police surgeons and the like.

The vast majority alluded to times as being either at or about something ending in '0' or '5'. I don't pretend that the list is exhaustive but the breakdown of what I found was:


Time ending in:


0 = 24


1 = 1


2 = 2


3 = 2


4 = 1


5 = 13


6 = 1


7 = 0


8 = 2


9 = 0


On almost every occasion when a time ending in other that '0' or '5' occurs it is to record that individual's, or someone else's, arrival at a murder scene. The exceptions are Inspector Chandler hearing about the Chapman murder "about 2 minutes past 6" and Halse documenting that he learned of the Eddowes murder "at about 2 minutes to two". Much the same seems to have been the case with the civilian witnesses also.


I think the evidence that there was approximation in most of the timings given by the various witnesses is overwhelming.

[Elamarna]

The only ones I would accept as being in any way precise are those given by a witness likely to have been in possession of a reliable watch and with a clear reason to note the time at the time

- e.g. Blackwell, on arriving at the scene of the Stride murder, "I consulted my watch on my arrival and it was 1.16."

Even that has to take into account that every watch and clock in the area was probably set to a slightly different time to every other.

Someone after my own heart, at last


Steve

[Bridewell]

how very true.

just more towards my argument against absolute times, and accepting those given by any as being pricise.


Steve

The only ones I would accept as being in any way precise are those given by a witness likely to have been in possession of a reliable watch and with a clear reason to note the time at the time

- e.g. Blackwell, on arriving at the scene of the Stride murder, "I consulted my watch on my arrival and it was 1.16."

Even that has to take into account the likelihood that every watch and clock in the area was set to a slightly different time to every other.

[Elamarna]

Sorry to be a bit late with this. If you were able to look at my old pocket books (long since destroyed sadly) you'd find that a lot of the times entered were rounded to the nearest 5 minutes - I suspect I wasn't alone in this. When Mizen had his conversation with Cross & Paul I imagine that he probably wasn't looking at his watch while he did so (always assuming that he carried one). He certainly couldn't be expected to know (except later) that the time of that conversation might be important. When he later made a record of the conversation he will have recalled that it took place about quarter to four in the morning. It might be instructive (if anyone is really at a loose end!) to go through the various timings given by police officers. Logic would suggest that times ending in 5 or 0 would make up only 20% of the whole - but I'm pretty sure it would be significantly more.

how very true.

just more towards my argument against absolute times, and accepting those given by any as being pricise.


Steve

[Bridewell]

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

Sorry to be a bit late with this. If you were able to look at my old pocket books (long since destroyed sadly) you'd find that a lot of the times entered were rounded to the nearest 5 minutes - I suspect I wasn't alone in this. When Mizen had his conversation with Cross & Paul I imagine that he probably wasn't looking at his watch while he did so (always assuming that he carried one). He certainly couldn't be expected to know (except later) that the time of that conversation might be important. When he later made a record of the conversation he will have recalled that it took place about quarter to four in the morning. It might be instructive (if anyone is really at a loose end!) to go through the various timings given by police officers. Logic would suggest that times ending in 5 or 0 would make up only 20% of the whole - but I'm pretty sure it would be significantly more.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;451206]

I beleive Mizen lied, to cover himself. Technically he did nothing wrong, but the press and public may have roasted him alive. His superiors knew, but has it had no material effect on the inquest, and protected the force as a whole, took no immediate action against him.


If you want pm me, its a major part of my book, so dont want to reveal all in public.

Nice fig tree.

I see that we can disagree and remain not on civil but friendly, thats good.



Steve[/QUOTE

On a practical note when several police officers are involved in the same incident it is normal for them to get their heads together when preparing written statements to make sure that at any future proceedings they are all singing from the same song sheet.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree Trevor,

That it seems not to have happened here( between Neil and Mizen) is telling i think.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;451206]

I beleive Mizen lied, to cover himself. Technically he did nothing wrong, but the press and public may have roasted him alive. His superiors knew, but has it had no material effect on the inquest, and protected the force as a whole, took no immediate action against him.


If you want pm me, its a major part of my book, so dont want to reveal all in public.

Nice fig tree.

I see that we can disagree and remain not on civil but friendly, thats good.



Steve[/QUOTE

On a practical note when several police officers are involved in the same incident it is normal for them to get their heads together when preparing written statements to make sure that at any future proceedings they are all singing from the same song sheet.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for the clarification, Trevor. I was using The Bill as my primary source.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;451203]I beleive Mizen lied, to cover himself. Technically he did nothing wrong, but the press and public may have roasted him alive. His superiors knew, but has it had no material effect on the inquest, and protected the force as a whole, took no immediate action against him.


If you want pm me, its a major part of my book, so dont want to reveal all in public.

Nice fig tree.

I see that we can disagree and remain not on civil but friendly, thats good.



Steve[/QUOTE

On a practical note when several police officers are involved in the same incident it is normal for them to get their heads together when preparing written statements to make sure that at any future proceedings they are all singing from the same song sheet.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

"It must be admitted that, ordinarily, where there can be
no cross-examination, depositions are not admissible ; but
those taken before the coroner have been said to be an
exception to this general rule"

Aside from clock/watch inaccuracy,as posted before, there was no cross-examination ,that's why an inquest or newspaper report is second best.This is also implied,above,by the 1887 coroners act.
Without cross-examination it's ambiguous.A simple cross-examination to all relevant witnesses like where were you when you last check the time and what was the timepiece would have clarified a lot of things.And more questions to Mizens sighting of the blood would have clarified things further.Cross examination would have undone any conspiracy.
But this was an inquest, with no accused (most cross-examinations are left to him/her since he/she had the right to and had the most to gain), so most witnesses testify to the best of their ability without thinking further about it - from the witness point of view and the coroner,so there will be discrepancies such as times for example.So I agree with Steve.Common sense says so.Also an inquest was for public consumption and I think as a courtesy to the victims (old world values perhaps and/or less murders then),but now inquests generally does not exist,find evidence first enough for a trial and a suspect and only then would there be a trial/something akin to an inquest.

--

[Simon Wood]

My fig tree has PMd you.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

"I have made it clear in this very thread that I consider Thain did not tell the whole truth and Mizen, as a result of my source based analysis certainly did not."

I would hazard a guess that they did not tell the whole truth for the purpose of saving their backsides.

Why are you ruling out Mizen having agreed anything with Neil?

My fig tree is now nine feet tall.

[ATTACH]18704[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

I beleive Mizen lied, to cover himself. Technically he did nothing wrong, but the press and public may have roasted him alive. His superiors knew, but has it had no material effect on the inquest, and protected the force as a whole, took no immediate action against him.


If you want pm me, its a major part of my book, so dont want to reveal all in public.

Nice fig tree.

I see that we can disagree and remain not on civil but friendly, thats good.



Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

"I have made it clear in this very thread that I consider Thain did not tell the whole truth and Mizen, as a result of my source based analysis certainly did not."

I would hazard a guess that they did not tell the whole truth for the purpose of saving their backsides.

Why are you ruling out Mizen having agreed anything with Neil?

My fig tree is now nine feet tall.



Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Cross can be placed in Bucks Row at 3.45 am. He was standing over [or near] the body as Paul approached at 3.45 am.

In order to paint the police as squeaky clean in this imbroglio, Cross and Paul have to be painted as mistaken, or as liars.

Cross has to be called nothing, its just Paul who is mistaken, probably with little or no intent. Indeed the source he used could have said 3.45, just that it was not syncronised with the times of the 3 police.
And no one is painting the Police "Squeaky clean" i have made it clear in this very thread that i consider Thain did not tell the whole truth and Mizen, as a result of my source based anaylisis certainly did not.


Talking of which, PC Neil stated that he saw "another constable in Baker's Row." Apart from the fact that there was no line of sight to Baker's Row, this constable could not have been Mizen because at that moment [3.45 am] he was further up Baker's Row on the corner of Hanbury Street talking to Cross and Paul.


Sorry but you are wrong on the sight issue. The Bottom third of Bakers Row junction is clearly visable from less than half way across Bucks Row. Proven by both OS mapping and 3D reconstruction.
Neil does not say he see this constable, who is indeed Mizen at 3.45, but after Thain has gone for Llewellyn.
Using these rediculious absolute times and sorry but they are, that means he sees Mizen at approx 3.48. At the very earliest. Such of cpurse is of great importance when looming at tbe so called scam



It's a fair bet that the 3.45 am timing was agreed upon after the fact by PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen. There's no way to prove it, I know, so I'm going back to my gardening.

The answer lies in the soil — Arthur Fallowfield.

Regards,

Simon

They may have, but as you say it cannot be tested.

I however consider it unlikely that Mizen, agreed anything with Neil, anything at all.


Hope the garden is going well Simon.


Best wishes


Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

Cross can be placed in Bucks Row at 3.45 am. He was standing over [or near] the body as Paul approached at 3.45 am.

In order to paint the police as squeaky clean in this imbroglio, Cross and Paul have to be painted as mistaken, or as liars.

Talking of which, PC Neil stated that he saw "another constable in Baker's Row." Apart from the fact that there was no line of sight to Baker's Row, this constable could not have been Mizen because at that moment [3.45 am] he was further up Baker's Row on the corner of Hanbury Street talking to Cross and Paul.

It's a fair bet that the 3.45 am timing was agreed upon after the fact by PCs Neil, Thain and Mizen. There's no way to prove it, I know, so I'm going back to my gardening.

The answer lies in the soil — Arthur Fallowfield.

Regards,

Simon