Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FrankO
    started a topic Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

    Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed

    Hi all,

    In the hope of getting a better view of it, I’ve tried to reconstruct Mizen’s inquest statement using the 10 newspaper snippets that I could find representing his inquest appearance. The blue-coloured text is what I added.

    Feel free to comment.

    Police constable Jonas Mizen), 56 H, said - On Friday morning last, at about a quarter to four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).
    *
    The man, whose name is Charles Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question. He came into the courtroom in a coarse sacking apron, appeared to be a carman and he had come from Buck's-row.
    *
    I asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." 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 Coroner - Was there anyone else there when you saw this policeman for the first time?
    Mizen - No one at all, Sir.

    The Coroner – Did you notice any blood then?
    Mizen - There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

    The blood appeared fresh. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed.

    The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?
    Mizen - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

    The other man appeared to be working with Cross.

    The Coroner – Where did Cross and the other man go to (after you spoke to Cross)?
    Mizen - Both of them/both (afterwards) went down Hanbury-street.

    The Coroner – Did you make haste after you finished talking to Cross?
    Mizen – I was engaged in knocking people up when Cross spoke to me. He told me a policeman wanted me. He did not say anything about murder or suicide.

    A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?
    Mizen - No. I finished knocking at the one place where I was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.

    I'm sure that a question was asked right after the question if there was someone in company with Cross, the answer to which included the words "went down Hanbury Street". As there are 3 newspapers that printed these words and 2 of those wrote that "both" went down Hanbury Street, it seems fair to suppose that the question indeed included both men, not just Paul.

    The best,
    Frank

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by GUT View Post
    My dad, never wore a watch, he was a truck driver, but knew what time it was within the 1/4 hour range, how well he knew he left home at 5:00 it took an hour to drive to the brewery, knew how long it took to load various combinations, took 15 minutes to drive to the flour mill, how long it took to load each 10 bags of flour, an hour back to home town how long to unload at each location, so no watch, no radio in the truck, no clock in the truck, but if he said it was 4:15 itd be darn close.

    Grandad was a coal miner, no watch underground back then, no sun to go by, think he didn’t know when it was smoko, or lunch, or knock off time?
    Great analogy. My own practise, when it was really busy - rushing from job to job - was to note time and place in the back of my pocket book and work from that when completing a fuller entry later in the night.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Bridwell,

    I find it hard to imagine all these people walking around silently muttering 'One-Mississippi, Two-Mississippi . . . ' etc, and staying in perfect synchronisation with one another to the extent that they're all able to declare that a certain event took place at 3.45 am.

    You can't get a Rizla paper between their testimonies.

    I would suggest that 3.45 am was agreed upon after the fact.

    Regards,

    Simon
    I would agree that those who were in a position to confer did exactly that. For the rest who were out and about in the middle of the night, I think that each, even without a watch, would have known approximately what time it was at any given moment. So 3.45am probably encompasses the sequence of events between 3.40-ish and 3.50-ish. Most witnesses in court refer to times as being 'about'. I've no doubt it was much the same in the LVP.

    Leave a comment:


  • GUT
    replied
    My dad, never wore a watch, he was a truck driver, but knew what time it was within the 1/4 hour range, how well he knew he left home at 5:00 it took an hour to drive to the brewery, knew how long it took to load various combinations, took 15 minutes to drive to the flour mill, how long it took to load each 10 bags of flour, an hour back to home town how long to unload at each location, so no watch, no radio in the truck, no clock in the truck, but if he said it was 4:15 itd be darn close.

    Grandad was a coal miner, no watch underground back then, no sun to go by, think he didn’t know when it was smoko, or lunch, or knock off time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Given the number of churches & businesses that had pendulum clocks which chimed, it shouldn't be difficult to be anywhere in the city and have a reasonable idea what the time was at any hour of the day, to within 15 minutes at least.
    Plus, a beat constable will know what the time is at every location on his beat. They were expected to be at given points at certain times, and the inspector was often on his rounds to check on them.

    There might be an issue whether an incident occurred at 3:35 or 3:40, but there should be no issue between 3:30 and 3:45. It's the 15 minutes between that we can debate. And that is the same concern for every hour of the day, unless someone has a watch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Bridwell,

    I find it hard to imagine all these people walking around silently muttering 'One-Mississippi, Two-Mississippi . . . ' etc, and staying in perfect synchronisation with one another to the extent that they're all able to declare that a certain event took place at 3.45 am.

    You can't get a Rizla paper between their testimonies.

    I would suggest that 3.45 am was agreed upon after the fact.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Without access to a timepiece, how would the various interested parties in and around Bucks Row have known that the nearest five minutes was 3.45 am?
    I guess by a kind of dead reckoning. You think back to the last time you saw a clock and estimate how long ago that was. How often was anyone's clock or watch checked against anything else? In an era when nobody owned a truly reliable timepiece all timings have to be seen as approximate. For that reason, any suspect theory which relies on exact timings is IMHO doomed from the outset.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Hi Jon,

    Church bells?

    Yes, indeed. We all know how accurate they proved to be with Mrs. Long.

    Regards,

    Simon
    I don't think the brewery clock had church bells.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    Church bells?

    Yes, indeed. We all know how accurate they proved to be with Mrs. Long.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrange169
    replied
    >>Without access to a timepiece, how would the various interested parties in and around Bucks Row have known that the nearest five minutes was 3.45 am?<<

    Xmere and Paul were both (loosely) around 5 mins from there setting off point. Whether they had timepieces at home or were "knocked up", they would have been able to gauge the time from their perspective.


    As for Llewellyn, as a doctor, it is not unreasonable to assume would own some kind of timepiece.


    All the policemen involved had beat targets to meet and had a duty to be aware of the approximate time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Church bells?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Without access to a timepiece, how would the various interested parties in and around Bucks Row have known that the nearest five minutes was 3.45 am?

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty
    replied
    As Colin states, policemen rounded times to the nearest 5 minutes, and use the prefix “approx” as an indicator.

    I mention this in my book. Not that I’m trying to plug that.

    Monty
    😁

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Really good work there


    Steve
    Thanks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Elamarna
    replied
    Really good work there


    Steve

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X