Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Elamarna]

Yes, sorry, I was just speculating about possible time sources, in the absence of any definite evidence.
Incidentally, according to the Times, Thain was heading north up Brady St, so had just passed the brewery clock (assuming his beat took him past this, I can't remember offhand).

"When he was signalled by Neil he was coming up Brady-street, from the direction of Whitechapel-road."

Also, there was a post office at the south end of Brady St, which may or may not have had a clock.

Thanks Joshua,
i have myself assumed he was going Clockwise, based on that report, but would prefer more than one report to be absolutly sure.
Yes the Brewery in that case would be a good source for his timing, as would the post office, if it had a clock.
The post office may also have provided a time check for Neil if it did have a clock. Thus explaining their close, but not exact estimates. And no need for watches.
It therefore seems likely that Neil and Thain could have been fairly well syncronised.

Thanks fpr the input.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, sorry, I was just speculating about possible time sources, in the absence of any definite evidence.
Incidentally, according to the Times, Thain was heading north up Brady St, so had just passed the brewery clock (assuming his beat took him past this, I can't remember offhand).

"When he was signalled by Neil he was coming up Brady-street, from the direction of Whitechapel-road."

Also, there was a post office at the south end of Brady St, which may or may not have had a clock.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
I think there was a clock on the front of the Albion Brewery (not the current facade which is slightly later I believe) but it was only visible from Whitechapel road. Did Thain's beat take him past this?
The clock on the London Hospital was (and still is) visible from west of the board school, which would probably have been visible to Neil, Cross, Paul and Mizen as they walked along Buck's Row, had they glanced southward.

Joshua, for Thain, it depends if he is walking clockwise or counter clockwise, if someone had evidence of that it would be wonderful.(yes he passes it, but is it before or after Brady Street.)

The Hospital clock ?

It may well have been the source for Neil, as he walked East towards the body.

Of the others Cross gives no Time other than he left home around 3.30 which could mean realistically a 5-6 minute range. If he saw the hospital clock he does not mention it.
Mizen would I think, have been unable to see it from his supposed position, so one assumes he had a different source.

Paul may have seen it as he walked West from the body to Mizen, but of course that does not help with Leaving home at just before 3.44 and entering Bucks Row at exactly 3.45..

And of course the chances of the hosptial clock being accurately syncronised with GMT are really not that high, maybe a minute or so either way yes, but pricisely i doubt.
What would be used as the source to syncronise with GMT.

I know we tend to assume they would not have watches, but Remember Woolf Kosminski certainly had one, so the possibility that Paul or even some of the Police had one cannot be ruled out.

I feel we get too concerned with absolute time. when such is unlikely to have existed in 1888.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Steve,
I think there was a clock on the front of the Albion Brewery (not the current facade which is slightly later I believe) but it was only visible from Whitechapel road. Did Thain's beat take him past this?
The clock on the London Hospital was (and still is) visible from west of the board school, which would probably have been visible to Neil, Cross, Paul and Mizen as they walked along Buck's Row, had they glanced southward.

[Elamarna]

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

Hi Simon.

First of all I look at this in my upcoming Book on Bucks Row.

Second, lets forget about absolute times, I really do not think such can be applied because of lack of syncronisation.

The police are more likely to have correct times than the public, its part of the job(if you want to know the time), but again how can we know Mizen's 3.45 is the same as Say Neil's 3.45.

Of interest the timings I have used in the work, that is walking speeds, while of course not pricise and only an aid, do suggest that it is entirely possible that Neil arrived at the Body, at approx the same time as the Carmen reached Mizen.

If we accept that Mizen was knocking up, it is probably that this was for a set time or within a set range. I feel that of all the accounts his time of 3.45 is probably closest to 3.45GMT, but certainly not pricise.

Thain and Neil are from the same Division as each other and may have syncronised their times, so although 3.45 might not be exactly 3.45, I find it acceptable that they may say the same time, although I suspect there may be a minutes difference.

Paul's time may be what he genuinly thought it was, but for his 3.45 to be meaningful the source of his time needs to be known, which its not, and to challenge the times of the police, be syncronised to their and Lechmere's times, which it is just impossible to demonstrate.

Some have argued that Paul may have used a public clock, church or even the Albion Brewery but even that would prove little as it is highly improbable that such was syncronised to GMT.

And I beleive most telling is that he says he left home just before 3.44, that to me suggests either a house clock or a watch. His later comment that from seeing the body to meeting Mizen took no more than 4 minutes argues that he may indeed have carried a watch, but such is unprovable.

It therefore is likely in my opinion that this discrepancy is easily explained, The Times are not absolute as we use today, Paul is very probably a few minutes fast on his arrival.

Relative times are the answer.
I beleive we can see that the walk from the body to Mizen took around 3 minutes, maybe slightly less, maybe slightly more.
I also beleive that there is a good argument for Neil arriving at the Body about 3 minutes after the carmen leave.

The issue that Mizen's time of 3.45 is not directly affected by Neil's discovery at his 3.45, unlike Thain's 3.45, argues I beleive for it to be reasonably accurate.


Hopefully when I publish, it will be alot clearer than this very brief and somewhat superficial response here.


Cheers


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

[Simon Wood]

Thank you, Steve.

[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]

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]

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?

[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]

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

But I donīt 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]

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, 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

[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.