Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Firstly, it seems quite clear to me that Fish's post #6 was highly misleading, and I'm not suggesting this was deliberate. A little more care taken over his use of the numbers 1 to 4 to illustrate his argument could have saved everyone's time!



It's all very well to claim afterwards that his first number 2 - Mizen seeing the blood - was never meant to represent the same thing as his subsequent number 2s, and that this was clear from the actual newspaper quotes he used earlier in the post, where the blood wasn't mentioned. But really, is it any wonder people get frustrated, when Fish refuses to see any problem here? If Fish's number 2s are not the same, when used within the same post to make a direct comparison between his 'layers' and what the papers say, there's something very wrong, isn't there? Perhaps he should see a bowel specialist or at least go for softer loo paper.

Secondly, assuming Nichols was dead when Mizen eventually made it to the scene, there would be no more bleeding under pressure by then anyway, so whenever he saw what looked to him like 'fresh' blood still running, it would have been due to leakage from the wound and gravity. She had 8 pints of it to start with, so there must have been a fair bit still inside her in liquid form, not pumping, but gradually draining downwards internally as she was lifted onto the ambulance. You only have to cut your finger with a knife to know it can start oozing or dripping blood again at any time after initially stopping, if you knock it during the healing process. Was there literally no liquid blood left in the area of the throat wound by the time Nichols was moved, which could have run out and downwards if the very recent wound was disturbed? Just the way she was lifted could have caused her head and shoulders to be lower than the rest of her for a few seconds.

Thirdly, the newspaper sources don't need to be interpreted in the way Fish does, and I can't even see why he wants to put Mizen's bleeding observation before he is sent for the ambulance, when it seems to me far more likely that it came about when Mizen himself "assisted to remove the body". Neil seems to have sent Mizen off for the ambulance pretty sharpish, so how long would Mizen have had in reality to stay and gawp at the corpse and make his observation, with Neil standing there tutting, wondering when the silly constable was going to do what he was told and stop impersonating a doctor?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, a very good fair post.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

I honestly dont think we can give a definitive answer to that question.

If we had a report which said it had stopped at some point we would be in a better position.
The best we probably have is Llewellyn and he indicates that the flow was no more than a trickle, it may even have stopped but he is not clear on that, so not safe to assume so.

The "blood evidence " theory, unfortunately does not really work, for several reasons, one of those being we have no reported stoppage, but that is not the only problem with it.

It is also extremely unlikely from the reports we have that Neil saw blood pumping under pressure.

If we accept the Neck as cause of Death, that gives a time frame of under 4 minutes from cut to heart failing. However if we go with Christer's suggesting of the abdomen wound being fatal, we are in all probaility looking at less than a minute.
Which is the cause is also open to debate. The saturated clothing and clotts between clothing suggest the neck, but it is not 100%.


A best bet would be be sometime within 10-15 minutes of Neil arriving at the site. That of course fits well within his last round of the beat.

If we accept for the sake of argument that Lechmere was not the killer, the cuts were probably made sometime in the previous 10 minutes.
I honestly do not feel we can be anymore pricise.


Hope that helps Abby


Steve

thanks el

yes it helps a lot!

[Abby Normal]

Given the timings of the police beat and Els opinion (I agree) then if Polly was murdered 15 minutes to being discovered, we have basically have 2 possible killers-lech and Anon.


To me its a tight time frame and the police beat timings narrows things down considerably IMHO.


of course we could consider Neil as another possibility, knowing he was last there within 10-15 minutes.


thoughts? comments?

[Elamarna]

Given the timings of the police beat and Els opinion (I agree) then if Polly was murdered 15 minutes to being discovered, we have basically have 2 possible killers-lech and Anon.


To me its a tight time frame and the police beat timings narrows things down considerably IMHO.


of course we could consider Neil as another possibility, knowing he was last there within 10-15 minutes.


thoughts? comments?

Abby,

That of course is very true, if Neil lied he could be in the frame. Personally I think he is one of the very few who does not lie in the whole sorry episode.

Another is Llewellyn, while i disagree with is views on some issues, i do not consider he ever knowingly attempted to misleaad or withhold anything, i simply consider him honestly out of his depth.

Two others whom i think are basically honest are Kirby and Purkiss.

Lechmere is of course accused of Lying, and Paul misleads in his Lloyds article, taking the lead role.

Tomkins, withholds and plays games,

Thain is not 100% about his cape.

Mrs Green certainly tries to mislead about girls in the area.

The whole mortuary debacle reflect poorly on all with the possible exception of Robert Mann.

Almost forgot, i think Mizen doqes not tell the whole truth.

No wonder it hard to work out what really occurred

Steve
😉

[Simon Wood]

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

[Sam Flynn]

Good post, 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

[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]

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

[MrBarnett]

Steve,

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

Gary

[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]

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.

[GUT]

They shouldn’t have have discussed it.

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

[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

[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