Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - by Michael W Richards 44 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Michael W Richards 53 minutes ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Michael W Richards 3 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Sam Flynn 7 hours ago.
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by Wickerman 14 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (10 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (5 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Witnesses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #441  
Old 07-18-2016, 01:23 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hitler was a well thought of Führer by many.

Regards, Pierre
I'm not sure of the analogy you're trying to make. Do you, for instance, believe that PC Mizen thought that the British Empire should expand eastwards at the expense of the Russian Empire? Or that he had plans for world domination? And why would that be relevant to the present discussion?

The simple fact is that there is nothing to suggest that PC Mizen was anything other than a diligent police officer. If you believe he wasn't then I suggest you provide supporting evidence, i.e. from relevant source material.

Last edited by John G : 07-18-2016 at 01:27 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 07-18-2016, 01:29 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

[quote=David Orsam;388336]

Quote:
But this conflict of evidence which, if Mizen is correct, means that Lechmere lied, must surely be a reason to at least classify Lechmere as a subject or if you prefer, as someone worthy of a closer look.
No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied. You must allow the sources to kick back. If you find sources with other types of narratives and wordings, those must be considered if they are good sources.

There is a very good possibility that both Mizen and Lechmere thought that they told the truth.

Telling the truth is NOT what is at stake here, but thinking that they did, since they were sworn.


People do often say things they believe to be true, which are not. You and me are examples of that, David.

So we must go to the sources. And what are the problems here?

1. We do not have the original sources.
2. The newspapers copy eachother.
3. We cannot decide upon which exact wording in the papers is the "correct" one (a correct copy of the original inquest testimonies) by counting articles having the same phraseology, since newspapers copied eachother.
4. Therefore we must find out which articles are the most likely to be the most accurate.
5. Closeness in time, dialogue and as few errors as possible is what we look for.

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 07-18-2016, 01:32 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
I'm not sure of the analogy you're trying to make. Do you, for instance, believe that PC Mizen thought that the British Empire should expand eastwards at the expense of the Russian Empire? Or that he had plans for world domination? And why would that be relevant to the present discussion?

The simple fact is that there is nothing to suggest that PC Mizen was anything other than a diligent police officer. If you believe he wasn't then I suggest you provide supporting evidence, i.e. from relevant source material.
OK. If you actually do not understand the example, here is another one: John Wayne Gacy was well thought of by many. And so was probably the police officer and serial killer Mikhail Popkov.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 07-18-2016, 01:38 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
OK. If you actually do not understand the example, here is another one: John Wayne Gacy was well thought of by many. And so was probably the police officer and serial killer Mikhail Popkov.
Is there any evidence that PC Mizen was a serial killer? Do you believe he may have been JtR?

I'm not saying PC Mizen could not have lied, simply that there is no reason to suppose he did. And, as I've noted several times now, it's ultimately the word of a sworn police officer, with an unblemished recorded, against that of a man discovered with a victim who, according to Paul, may still have been alive.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 07-18-2016, 01:48 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied.
Do you even bother to read the posts you are replying to Pierre?

Here's what I said (with some bold highlighting added for you):

'But this conflict of evidence which, if Mizen is correct, means that Lechmere lied, must surely be a reason to at least classify Lechmere as a subject or if you prefer, as someone worthy of a closer look'.

Your reply was "No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied".

Well, Pierre, you are self-evidently wrong because if Mizen is correct then Lechmere lied. Or perhaps you can show me how Mizen is correct (and Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row) but Lechmere was telling the truth.

If you can't do it then perhaps you will so good as to modify your post to "Yes David you are right, it does mean that Lechmere lied".
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 07-18-2016, 02:27 PM
Mr Lucky Mr Lucky is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
To cut to the chase, that is the exact point that I am challenging. Nothing that Mizen said would have helped the jury to establish whether Nichols was dead or alive when he arrived on the scene.
That's correct, he is not establishing anything, Mizen is giving corroborative evidence not revealing new information.

Quote:
And, in any event, Neil had already given evidence about the blood he saw when he arrived on the scene (before Mizen) so Mizen, who was not a doctor, could have added nothing.
They don't want Mizen to add anything, they want the evidence to corroborate.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 07-18-2016, 02:31 PM
Mr Lucky Mr Lucky is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I'm not saying that Nichols wasn't dead. I'm saying that Mizen referencing blood flowing from a throat wound would not have assisted the jury in determining whether she was dead or not.

As you say, the jury already had the evidence of both Dr Llewellyn and Neil and would already have known that Nichols was dead when Mizen arrived. So I'm suggesting there might have been another reason for Mizen giving evidence about the blood.
The jury (or anyone) may draw other conclusions about the evidence, and the blood at the scene had been under some scrutiny right from the start. I would suggest that if the case reached trial there would be considerably more evidence given about the blood than that used at the Inquest – and I bet we would know exactly when Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene to the minute.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 07-18-2016, 02:37 PM
Mr Lucky Mr Lucky is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Mr Lucky.
Re your post 403,What have I made up?
“He cannot,under English law,be considered a suspect,and he never was.”

It's not only made up, but wrong and grossly misleading. Being considered a suspect (ie, a presumption based on suspicion) has nothing to do with it – a suspect is a term used in connection with arrest, not culpability. Try and understand what 'actus reas' means regarding a homicide with violence like the Nichols case.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 07-18-2016, 02:55 PM
Mr Lucky Mr Lucky is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John G View Post
Thanks for this, David. This clearly illustrates that PC Mizen was a very well-thought of police officer, and I therefore see no reason why it should be assumed he lied, whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.
Interestingly the original default position on this point was that Mizen was such a good cop he must have taken the men's names down when they spoke to him – which was why poor innocent Charlie Cross gave a false name – it was just a spur of the moment decision. He was panicked about the gangs etc.

If anyone had suggested that Mizen had done anything wrong and not taken the men names there would be uproar from the 'don't think' brigade.

If you read Fish's article – even he unquestionably followed the ( at the time) standard version - Mizen took the men's names.

Last edited by Mr Lucky : 07-18-2016 at 02:58 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 07-18-2016, 03:30 PM
Errata Errata is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tennessee, U.S.
Posts: 2,937
Default

There is actually a paper floating around out there somewhere on people's reactions upon finding a dead body. And it's not as interesting a read as you might think, but it is sort of an interesting look at how it not only a frightening experience, but apparently a temporary mind blowing experience, disrupting sensory input, memory, speech, executive function.... as well as potentially causing an existential crisis. I'll comb through my college papers and see if I can find it.

Point is people often arent right after finding a body, and are operating what is best referred to as auto pilot while their mind is sort of consumed with what they just saw. So imagine how consumed you might be with having to tell the kids their grandpa died, but in the meantime you have o go to the grocery store. God only knows what you will buy because you are distracted. Same principle. Plus, there is something called the replaced subject slip (I think) where if you are staring at topless woman and are one the phone with someone you might say "And get the breasts out of the oven" instead of "And get the turkey out of the oven" because you've replaced the subject with what you are staring at. So a distressed man might say " a policeman needs you" while staring at a policeman instead of "I need a policeman." Super common verbal gaffe.

For all I know Lechmere totally did it. Not really my thing. But it is worth allowing for the idea that a man under perfectly understandable stress behaved like a man under perfectly understandable stress. Even if you don't want to just assume that, at least allow it I think. Which doesn't clear him of guilt at all I suppose, but does mean that he might not have lied so much as just sort of had a communications failure.

And to be honest, it is also extremely common for people to rewrite events after a stressful event, so Mizner could have rearranged words in his memory, led to do so by the presence of a cop at his destination. There is a whole lot on why we sometimes say things we don't mean, or remember things that didn't happen. We had some research, but the Satanic Panic in the 80s really drove a lot of research in the 90s. It's fascinating. And possibly relevant to these events. The moral of the story is that it happens, for good reasons, and this is an event that could create such reasons, so it's a possibility. It's not about lying, or covering up. It's just about how our brains work after shock. This exchange does not strike me as suspicious. Nor does it strike me as proof on innocence. It just strikes me as fairly normal.
__________________
The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.