Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

[Abby Normal]

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

[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

[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

[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,

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

[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

[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,

"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,

"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]

My fig tree has PMd you.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

--

[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

[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.

[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

[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.