Your views on what a "prudent officer" should have done are irrelevant. That is not in the Code. The Code did not require constables to be psychic or be able to predict the future. As far as I am aware, not a single contemporary criticism was made of Mizen for not taken the particulars of the carmen. It's a wholly modern obsession. There was nothing in the Code that required him to take the details so he didn't. It's simple.
So if someone walked up to Mizen and reported having seen a murder, the particulars would have been taken, since murder was a crime.
It is a matter of rules for different types of reports.
No crime, no particulars.
So Lechmere did not tell Mizen about a crime since he did not think it was a crime.
He reported there was a policeman in Buck´s Row already, according to Mizen.
So in that moment, Lechmere did not understand it was a crime.
And the policeman in Buck´s Row did not tell him it was a crime.
Lechmere was not the killer.
So why was he in need of inventing a policeman in Buck´s Row?
And why did that policeman not tell Lechmere that the woman was murdered?
That is the exact point David, there was no criticism maybe because he claimed another officer had sent them and so that officer should have taken the details.
Of course when it appears that such had not happened, it can and surely was viewed as a mistake/misunderstanding and so no blame attached at all..
If Mizen did not feel what was told him was an emergency there was no Need to take any details.
Johns point that it may have been prudent to take details anyway is probably true in hindsight, but it was not required.
However not being required and looking bad in the press are different matters, but surely not enough on their own to force Mizen to lie.
It will be very interesting to see how you establish an intention as a historical fact, especially since that intention was not practised.
Yes it will.
I would normally agree such was not really possible, but let's see what happens..
For now it does not exist has I have not disclosed it, however thread development last week forced me to give a few hints.
Just catching up, with street names, the one that interests me is Cross's claim in the Morning Advertiser,
"I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row."
No Parson in the area, ever, as far as I can tell.
Closest is Pereira Street, next to Foster. It was called Park Street, Park Street/ Parson could be a mishearing.
What intrigues me is the term, "I went down", On the map Pereira would be consistant with "down", but, of course, "down" can mean along! I've checked if Cross describes going "down" Buck's Row, he doesn't.
So, all in all I'm wondering if he did, in fact, go down Pereira?
"Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..." Fisherman