Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

In addition to this, people tend to round times up or down to the nearest 5 minutes, don't they? Even today, a witness would be very unlikely to know, and even less likely to say, that he found a body at, say, 3.43, or was told about a body at, say, 3.46. Why would we think anything was amiss, therefore, if both witnesses gave a time of 3.45, despite the locations being 3 minutes' walk apart? Back in 1888 they could have rounded it up or down to 3.45 and easily been ten minutes out either way, depending on what they were using to tell - or guesstimate - the time.


Couldn't agree more Caz, of course when ones reads the actual reports rather than what gets printed in books, its very clear that often "about" or "round" becomes an exact time. It happens in the reports too.

We have three clocks in our small kitchen, a battery wall clock and digital clocks on the cooker and microwave oven. I regularly find all three showing different times, out by up to two or three minutes, and have to synchronise them all again, using the time on the laptop - which will be different again from the kitchen clocks and the wall clock in the sitting room!

Love,

Caz
X

The very point i have been trying to make over the last few years time and time again.
Unfortunately some won't listen or just don't seem to understand.

I keep banging on about absolute (its 3.45, set in stone) and relative times( the carmen arrive at Mizen approx 3 mins after they leave the body, Neil also very possible arrives at the body at the same time they meet Mizen) but i am not sure people understand what i mean or understand the significance of the differences.


Steve

[caz]

Mizen himself says he meets the carmen at 3.45, again this should not be treated as if its set in stone to GMT, however it would take about 3 minutes from the murder scene to reach him (2.5-3.5 mins depending on the walking pace) , such fits very well with the possible position of Neil, and would allow him to miss the carmen and arrive at the body at the same approx time that the carmen reach Mizen. Coincidence maybe, but too tight a fit for me.

Once we accept that Paul's time is not set in stone, there is no evidence to suggest that Neil was not there when he should have been.

Hi Steve,

In addition to this, people tend to round times up or down to the nearest 5 minutes, don't they? Even today, a witness would be very unlikely to know, and even less likely to say, that he found a body at, say, 3.43, or was told about a body at, say, 3.46. Why would we think anything was amiss, therefore, if both witnesses gave a time of 3.45, despite the locations being 3 minutes' walk apart? Back in 1888 they could have rounded it up or down to 3.45 and easily been ten minutes out either way, depending on what they were using to tell - or guesstimate - the time.

We have three clocks in our small kitchen, a battery wall clock and digital clocks on the cooker and microwave oven. I regularly find all three showing different times, out by up to two or three minutes, and have to synchronise them all again, using the time on the laptop - which will be different again from the kitchen clocks and the wall clock in the sitting room!

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

"Just what evidence does Cross give which says Neil is not there at 3.45?
Come on, what does he say that confirms your view?"

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness [Cross]: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

Regards,

Simon

Simon

I do not wish to be rude, but that does not address the point raised in any sense at all.


The question is not was Neil there when Croos was, All involved say no. The issue is was Neil at Brown's Yard at or close to 03.45?

Lets do it stage by stage

Cross says he saw no one in Bucks Row- we agree on that.

Does that mean Neil is not in Bucks Row at 3.45?

Of course it does not, unless you can place Cross in Bucks Row at 3.45 too.

Ignore Neil and Thains testimonies and we have two possible sources for supplying the information to resolve this.

We have Paul, who claims to be in Bucks Row at 3.45, however his account is highly questionable for many reasons including his tendency to take the lead and his tendency to attack the police.

Secondly we have Mizen who claims he met the two carmen at the junction of Old Montague and Hanbury street also at 3.45.

It is not in anyway clear that Cross can be shown to have been in Bucks Row at 3.45.

If that cannot be shown, it follows he cannot say if Neil is there at that time.

Why is that so hard to accept Simon?

There is nothing in the quote you provide which can suggest that Neil was not at Brown's Yard at or close to 3.45 is there


And of course the 3.45 itself need not be set in stone, but thats a different issue.


Regards
Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi Steve,

"Just what evidence does Cross give which says Neil is not there at 3.45?
Come on, what does he say that confirms your view?"

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness [Cross]: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

This latest in the thread is very good. Learning much. : )

[Elamarna]

They shouldn’t have have discussed it.

Doesn5 mean they didn’t, just they weren’t supposed to.

Agreed GUT,

given Thain give evidence 2 weeks after Neil and even Mizen, its unlikely he was not aware of Neil's claim of finding the body at 3.45

Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks, Steve. I'm entirely with you on the imprecision of the timings. Even today, with clocks, watches, radio/tv, mobile phones etc I bet most people would be hard pressed to say to within a few minutes at what time they were at the half way point in their daily commute to work.


We are currently back in Romford, until the weekend. It was very hot here yesterday.

BTW, I was pleased by your 'Tomkins withholds and plays games' comment. My view exactly.

Am in Streatham myself, a bit cooler this morning.
My two mobiles are meant to be automatically linked to time, yet there is a difference of 3 seconds.
If you listen to the News on Radio 4 on the internet its a few seconds behind GMT. It maybe upto 30 secondsi think, but am happy to be corrected.
20 years ago if you wanted the correct time you phoned the "speaking clock"

None of this was avalible in 1888, the closest would be telegraph messages sent from say scotland yard, who were probably syncronised with Big Ben(but still not GMT) to police stations. One would therefore expect the times in various stations to be reasonably syncronised, but such is by no means certain.

And yet we still get questions about times, when without sycronised timekeeping, the actual times are nothing but rough guides.



Steve

[GUT]

They shouldn’t have have discussed it.

Doesn5 mean they didn’t, just they weren’t supposed to.

[MrBarnett]

Hi
Yes they may have Gary, Thain did not appear at the inquest until 17th some two and a balf weeks after Neil. Such would be logical.
One could argue that if the time was the result of collusion and invention Thain would have said 3.46 or just after 3.45 to allow for Neil finding the body first.

I suspect that they often passed each other in the area of Brady Street, and may have used each other to judge thier pace.
It is entirely possible, indeed probably that Neil was the "officier" whom Thain gave his cape to, to drop it off at HB.

None of that of course means that 3.45 is actually 3.45. Just that their relative times were fairly well syncronised.

Of course the question is not was Neil there at 3.45 exactly, rather it is, in the context of Simon's suggestion, was Cross able to actually say if Neil was not there at 3.45?

Of course he was not.

However what we can say is that taking Cross and Paul together it is clear there was no policeman in Bucks Row itself when they walked west towards Mizen.
Such is fully in keeping with the probable beat of Neil.
Unfortunately there appears to be only one detailed account of this beat, that appearing in the Echo. 21st September :


"the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's Row, Thomas Street Queen Anne street, andBuck's row, to Brady street, and all theinterior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage,&c"


In tbe absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I am more than happy to accept that Neil was where he should have been within an acceptable time range of when he should have been there.

To progress a theory that such is not the case, one needs supporting evidence.


How hot is it down there btw Gary? Sweltering in South London


Cheers


Steve

Thanks, Steve. I'm entirely with you on the imprecision of the timings. Even today, with clocks, watches, radio/tv, mobile phones etc I bet most people would be hard pressed to say to within a few minutes at what time they were at the half way point in their daily commute to work.


We are currently back in Romford, until the weekend. It was very hot here yesterday.

BTW, I was pleased by your 'Tomkins withholds and plays games' comment. My view exactly.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Isn't it likely that Neil and Thain would have coordinated their timings before giving them in evidence?

Gary

Hi
Yes they may have Gary, Thain did not appear at the inquest until 17th some two and a balf weeks after Neil. Such would be logical.
One could argue that if the time was the result of collusion and invention Thain would have said 3.46 or just after 3.45 to allow for Neil finding the body first.

I suspect that they often passed each other in the area of Brady Street, and may have used each other to judge thier pace.
It is entirely possible, indeed probably that Neil was the "officier" whom Thain gave his cape to, to drop it off at HB.

None of that of course means that 3.45 is actually 3.45. Just that their relative times were fairly well syncronised.

Of course the question is not was Neil there at 3.45 exactly, rather it is, in the context of Simon's suggestion, was Cross able to actually say if Neil was not there at 3.45?

Of course he was not.

However what we can say is that taking Cross and Paul together it is clear there was no policeman in Bucks Row itself when they walked west towards Mizen.
Such is fully in keeping with the probable beat of Neil.
Unfortunately there appears to be only one detailed account of this beat, that appearing in the Echo. 21st September :


"the third constable would commence at Brady street, cover Whitechapel road, Baker's Row, Thomas Street Queen Anne street, andBuck's row, to Brady street, and all theinterior, this consisting of about ten streets, courts, passage,&c"


In tbe absence of any other evidence to the contrary, I am more than happy to accept that Neil was where he should have been within an acceptable time range of when he should have been there.

To progress a theory that such is not the case, one needs supporting evidence.


How hot is it down there btw Gary? Sweltering in South London


Cheers


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Steve,

Isn't it likely that Neil and Thain would have coordinated their timings before giving them in evidence?

Gary

[Elamarna]

You can fiddle with the time discrepancies as much as you like, but in the end you have to explain how, if everybody was a few minutes out, fast or slow, they managed to agree on 3.45 am.

Of course there is evidence to suggest that PC Neil wasn't in Bucks Row at the stated time. That evidence is the testimony of Charles Cross.

Regards,

Simon

Simon,

Lets deal with how they agreed

Neil and Thain are both in the same division, the beats overlap. They may well use the same source time when they start their beats and may even use each other as rough checks.

However it is probably that Thain is slightly later than Neil, thus emphasising the problem of taking times as absolute, they are not!

Its not 3.45 that's important, but that Thain is at the end of Bucks Row within a minute approx of Neil.

Similarly Mizen gives a time which fits with the distance walked by the carmen and the probable beat of Neil.

Moving on

Just what evidence does Cross give which says Neil is not there at 3.45?
Come on, what does he say that confirms your view?

Cross does not give a time, other than to say he leaves home about 3.30.
If he gives no time, there is noway he is saying Neil is not there at 3.45, because Cross himself cannot be placed there at 3.45. Nor can such be implied by anything he says with all due respect to you.

We have only 4 times given.

Paul in Lloyds weekly, the reliability of which is very questionable.

Mizen who claims he meets the carmen at 3.45, such as stated above rules out Cross being able to say if Neil is there at 3.45

Neil himself and Thain. Both give 3.45.


One thing which needs to be pointed out is that the beats were not pricise, they are meant to be walked at an average pace, allowing for stoppages.

The suggestion that Neil was meant to be somewhere on his beat at a pricise time is with all due respect unrealistic. If he noticed an open door or window, or engaged a member of the public in conversation his beat could very easily vary by a few minutes on every circuit.

Simon of course you can propose any scereno you want, however the one you wish to do so here, is NOT supported by any evidence.

Best wishes


Steve

[Simon Wood]

You can fiddle with the time discrepancies as much as you like, but in the end you have to explain how, if everybody was a few minutes out, fast or slow, they managed to agree on 3.45 am.

Of course there is evidence to suggest that PC Neil wasn't in Bucks Row at the stated time. That evidence is the testimony of Charles Cross.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Cross said that he had not seen a policeman between leaving Bucks Row and meeting PC Mizen.

This was because he had not seen a policeman, which suggests that PC Neil was not where he said he was at 3.45 am.

Mizen on the other hand told the inquest that he was informed by a carman who passed in company with another man that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row.

This was the policeman Cross hadn't seen, the policeman who wasn't there when he should have been.

It doesn't take a great deal of brain cudgeling to work out what was going on here.

Regards,

Simon

Sorry Simon,

I beleive you are looking for things that are not there.

You say Neil is not there at 3.45, however that is not backed by any reliable sources.
The only way of reaching that conclusion is to accept Paul's very debatable 3.45 in Lloyds.
Why may I ask do people just treat these times as if they are accurate to the second?
Why do people assume 3.45 on one clock or watch would be the same on another?

Indeed what ever Paul used to set his time may indeed have said 3.45, just it was not syncronised with the time source the policemen used. Trying to use absolute times as I say over and over again is pointless!

The times are no exact and it is very probable that it is Paul who is wrong with his time,

It is probable that Neil arrived at the murder site either from Queen Ann st or the Northern section of Thomas street approx 3 minutes after the carmen leave. And that it could have been very close to 3.45 GMT when he did, however it is not possible to be pricise about that.

Mizen himself says he meets the carmen at 3.45, again this should not be treated as if its set in stone to GMT, however it would take about 3 minutes from the murder scene to reach him (2.5-3.5 mins depending on the walking pace) , such fits very well with the possible position of Neil, and would allow him to miss the carmen and arrive at the body at the same approx time that the carmen reach Mizen. Coincidence maybe, but too tight a fit for me.

Once we accept that Paul's time is not set in stone, there is no evidence to suggest that Neil was not there when he should have been.

I understand you idea Simon, but we both know there is absolutely no source or evidence of any sort to support the idea that some police were sciving, None at all.


Cheers


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Good post, Simon.