Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[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

[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,
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]

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]

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

[Elamarna]

A follow up to the last report is that the Times report mentioned by Joshua is very detailed and is probably correct, what can confuse however is the graphic from the Lechmere TV documentary which has Thain walking a very short beat, in a counter clockwise direction.

Agsin Thanks for quoting the Times Joshua


Steve

[Elamarna]

I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6.


Steve

Still linguistically lacking, but the essence of matters is that I think that the Echo did not leave things out - I think the other papers did. And are they not very much alike - as if a singe source was quoted in all cases?

Regardless of that, I donīt think we will soleve the case on numerical grounds. As in "more papers have it A than B, so A is more likely to be true".

Such things do not depend on numbers only, at least not in my world.

[Elamarna]

Still linguistically lacking, but the essence of matters is that I think that the Echo did not leave things out - I think the other papers did. And are they not very much alike - as if a singe source was quoted in all cases?

Regardless of that, I donīt think we will soleve the case on numerical grounds. As in "more papers have it A than B, so A is more likely to be true".

Such things do not depend on numbers only, at least not in my world.

Avoiding addressing the issue. And a pathetic attempt to divert by attacking my use of language.

The Echo did not include the full account, and it did not, no mention of the assisting put the body onto the ambulance. Not interpretation just facts.

Please read post's 7, 8 and 9.

You claim two papers mention the bleeding description from Mizen, they do not.

You include such in your post several times.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Avoiding addressing the issue. And a pathetic attempt to divert by attacking my use of language.

The Echo did not include the full account, and it did not, no mention of the assisting put the body onto the ambulance. Not interpretation just facts.

Please read post's 7, 8 and 9.

You claim two papers mention the bleeding description from Mizen, they do not.

You include such in your post several times.


Steve

First: I am not attacking your language. I sometimes have problems understanding what you write, and I need help to have it clarified. You seem to have difficulties with it at times, and I recognize that it is a common thing. To hold it against somebody is low and despicable.

There, that should settle the issue.

Now, as for the Echo, they certainy add things that other papers do not. If anything, the Echo is more full, not less.

I donīt know where you think I am saying that two papers mention Mizen speaking of Nichols bleeding, and you are welcoime to point it out.

I do not include "such" in my posts several times at all. That is nonsense.

[Elamarna]

First: I am not attacking your language. I sometimes have problems understanding what you write, and I need help to have it clarified. You seem to have difficulties with it at times, and I recognize that it is a common thing. To hold it against somebody is low and despicable.

There, that should settle the issue.

It is you who continually raises the issue of language,

I posted :

"I notice there has been no attempt to explain the factually untruths in post #6."

That is extremely clear, yet you respond with :

"Still linguistically lacking, "

How you can say that is not attacking is somewhat disingenuous.


Now, as for the Echo, they certainy add things that other papers do not. If anything, the Echo is more full, not less.


You in post #6 used what you called "layers" to present your case:


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 Echo clearly does not include 4.
The Morning Advertiser, Star, Daily Post and the Evening Standard do.

Those 4 include all 4 elements or "layers".

The Echo with only 3 "layers" can therefore in no reasonable way be said to contain more information than the others.


I donīt know where you think I am saying that two papers mention Mizen speaking of Nichols bleeding, and you are welcoime to point it out.


What a shame you have not bothered to reread what you posted in post #6.

Firstly comments on the Daily News:


"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."""


You are implying this agrees with the Echo about when a question is asked or a comment is made.
The quote you provide however does not provide that information.


"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"".


However again there is no comment here about the bleeding.

Post #6 then goes on to say

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

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2."

There are the two examples.

However lets us look at the full quotes to see if anything has been missed:

Daily News.



Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the corner of Hanbury street and Baker's row, when a carman passing by in company with another man said, "You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." 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.
A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted? Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person.

Clearly no mention of any bleeding or any question about such from Baxter.


DailyTelegraph


Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Again no mention of bleeding, contrary to fhe now reposted claims in post #6.


I do not include "such" in my posts several times at all. That is nonsense.

Given that you quote the two papers to support the idea, before later in the post listing both as containing information on the bleeding, it seems that "such" is not nonsense in any logical use of the word


Steve

[Fisherman]

Given that you quote the two papers to support the idea, before later in the post listing both as containing information on the bleeding, it seems that "such" is not nonsense in any logical use of the word


Steve

First of all, you can say that a text is linguistically lacking without attacking the one who produced the text. It really should not be too hard a concept to grasp. If I have to deal with language that is hard to understand at times, I will be at a disadvantage to formulate my own answers, and I may give the wrong answer as a result of that.
Therefore, pointing out that the language gos wrong every now and then is something I actually need to do, to clarify what it is you ask about.
Please do not take that as a criticism of yourself, because it is not. If anything, I want to give you the fairest treatment possible by trying to get things right before I answer.

Moving on, of course three layers of information can be more informative than four. It all hinges on the information involved in the different layers. Try this, focusing on football:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was played in Russia.
3. It was played in sunny weather.
4. It was a tough match.

Compare with this:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was a World Cup match.
3. England beat Marocko by 9-0.

Letīs not oversimplify, Steve. None of the other papers included the sequence of events in the way The Echo did, and that makes a humongous difference. For example. And certainly, the "majority" you lean on may have used the same source. Or?

Plus, of course, why in the whole world would Mizen say that the blood seemed fresh - if he KNEW it was not?

You then say that I use the Daily News to "imply" things...? That, Iīm afraid, is a rot. I pointed out that they did the kind of backtracking that the Echbo also did, meaning that there is support for that particular issue.

And then you start saying that there is no mentioning of any bleeding - as if I had said there was...? I have said no such thing at all. It seems you want to support my number listing as evidence of this, but that is just wrong.

I know full well that the Echo is the paper that speaks of Mizen and the bleeding, and I know ewually well that everybody else out here is aware of this too. I am not stupid enough not to be aware of this and I am certainly not one who would dishonestly try to fool people into thinking something. Moreover, I completely loathe the mere idea.

Discuss away, debate away - that is what the boards are for. But if you want to bring me along to some sort of dishonesty bog, sorry, but I am not up for that trip.

[Elamarna]

Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post

First of all, you can say that a text is linguistically lacking without attacking the one who produced the text. It really should not be too hard a concept to grasp. If I have to deal with language that is hard to understand at times, I will be at a disadvantage to formulate my own answers, and I may give the wrong answer as a result of that.
Therefore, pointing out that the language gos wrong every now and then is something I actually need to do, to clarify what it is you ask about.
Please do not take that as a criticism of yourself, because it is not. If anything, I want to give you the fairest treatment possible by trying to get things right before I answer.


The post you claim was "lacking" was concise and clear.
Maybe it is your failure to understand rather than mine to convey that should be questioned.
However it is clear from the content of the subsequent posts that it was an attack, minor and immature, but an attack none the less.


Moving on, of course three layers of information can be more informative than four. It all hinges on the information involved in the different layers. Try this, focusing on football:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was played in Russia.
3. It was played in sunny weather.
4. It was a tough match.

Compare with this:

1. A football match was played today.
2. It was a World Cup match.
3. England beat Marocko by 9-0.

Letīs not oversimplify, Steve. None of the other papers included the sequence of events in the way The Echo did, and that makes a humongous difference. For example. And certainly, the "majority" you lean on may have used the same source. Or?


As a comparision to the Layers in post#6, that is intellectually dishonest.
We have in the about example 2 different sets of data, in the press reports we have only 1.
The ONLY difference is the order in the Echo is different.
To claim it contains additional data is untrue, its the same data
That is very clear.



Plus, of course, why in the whole world would Mizen say that the blood seemed fresh - if he KNEW it was not?

Why would he know?
Why would you expect him to be able to differentiate between fresh bleeding and secondary bleeding started by moving the body?

You then say that I use the Daily News to "imply" things...? That, Iīm afraid, is a rot. I pointed out that they did the kind of backtracking that the Echbo also did, meaning that there is support for that particular issue.

There is no evidence of backtracking, its purely imaginary

And then you start saying that there is no mentioning of any bleeding - as if I had said there was...? I have said no such thing at all. It seems you want to support my number listing as evidence of this, but that is just wrong.


That is contrary to what you have posted in post #6:


"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."



You then posted :

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

The Daily Telegraph has it 1-3-2."


BOTH include point 2, that mizen sees there is blood flowing, appearing fresh.

There are no such comments in either the News or the Telegraph.
It follows that your inclusion of such comments for the News and Telegraph are untrue


I know full well that the Echo is the paper that speaks of Mizen and the bleeding, and I know ewually well that everybody else out here is aware of this too. I am not stupid enough not to be aware of this and I am certainly not one who would dishonestly try to fool people into thinking something. Moreover, I completely loathe the mere idea.

Discuss away, debate away - that is what the boards are for. But if you want to bring me along to some sort of dishonesty bog, sorry, but I am not up for that trip.

The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve

[MrBarnett]

Before commenting, i see you are once again not able to accept responsibility for the items you post




The problem of course is that you posted the statement, which is untruthful and i agree you are not stupid.

What is sad is that you are not able to admit that you posted that the two papers included bleeding in the accounts, when in Black and white and by your own hand you clearly did.
Even sadder is the inability to accept responsibility for the mistake, claim that you have not posted the comment, and are being somehow misrepresented.


Steve

Steve,

Wouldn't the word 'incorrect' have been more appropriate than 'untruthful'?

Gary

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Wouldn't the word 'incorrect' have been more appropriate than 'untruthful'?

Gary

Dear Gary,

In my initial response to post #6, i did indeed use the term incorrect, assuming a simple mistake.
In the next post #8 when realising that the Telegraph was also wrong i again used incorrect.

It was only on reflection that i used the word "untruthful".

Is it appropriate?
Yes i think it is, when a post provides information to be used to back up a propsal, in this case that the Echo is correct in its report, but that information is clearly incorrect , and known to be, (quotes were provided in post 6, so it cannot be down to a faulty memory) that information passes into the realm of untruthful.

It is not a term used lightly, however as posted and since defended the comments remain untruthful.


Steve