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:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 4 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Sam Flynn 30 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Herlock Sholmes 32 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by The Station Cat 1 hour and 2 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by The Station Cat 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Spitfire 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (36 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: distances between kills.odd - (15 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (9 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (7 posts)
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (5 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
  #611  
Old 07-26-2016, 09:02 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Letīs look at what Mizen said when it comes to the information he stated to have been given about who had found the body in Bucks Row.

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."
Daily News

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.
Daily Telegraph

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."
East London Observer

a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there.
The Echo

A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row.
The Evening News

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.
Illustrated Police News

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).
Morning Advertiser

man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there.
The Star

a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there.
The Times

Question number one:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere kept the information that he himself had found the body from Mizen?

Answer:
Yes, each and every one of them seems to support that notion. It is spoken of a PC who had summoned Mizen, it is said that Mizen was wanted in Buckīs row, presumably by that policeman, and it is stated that Lechmere claimed that a woman "had been found" in Bucks Row.

Question number two:
Does any of the paper reports support the suggestion that Lechmere told Mizen that he himself had been the finder of the body of Polly Nichols?

Answer:
No, not a single paper supprts that notion. They instead point to how the carman, according to Mizen, had stated that a woman had been found in Bucks Row, and that a policeman had requested Mizens (or any other PC:s) support, leaving the reader to conclude that this PC was the finder of the body.

Now, if Lechmere had told Mizen that he himself was the finder, and if Mizen was reporting matters correctly, I would have wanted the wording to be "You are needed in Bucks Row. I found a woman lying there, who may weel be dead."

But none of the papers have any wording like that at all when reporting the testimony of Jonas Mizen.

PS. Trevor, can you see now how I do the maths here? Can you understand why I am suspicious of the carman and his behaviour? Can you see why James Scobie said that a jury would not like him?
Ok
So out of that list of newspaper reports which do you think is correct, and how can you prove it to be correct.

Because for example even if the Times reporter was sitting in court taking notes, who is to say he didn't make a mistake etc. That is why I have little faith in the use of newspaper articles in this Ripper mystery.

The problem is that with these newspaper articles just two words misquoted can change the whole interpretation of that article which is what has happened is it not?

If Scobie was given a mish mash of newspaper reports showing the errors I can see why he would have said that, because they all show errors which may not have been attributable to Cross, and so in reality Cross may have not lied.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies,but it doesn't always tell the truth"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #612  
Old 07-26-2016, 09:27 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,363
Default

Fish,

As far as we know, the inquest jury at the time didn't have an issue with the discrepancy. And bear in mind, this was the same jury that 'badgered' Henry Tomkins about where he and Britten had taken their break.

Gary
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #613  
Old 07-26-2016, 09:58 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
It's not too subtle at all.Mizen makes a claim that Cross denies.The onus is on Mizen to substanciate that claim with evidence.He does not.Cross is entitled under law to be considered innocent unless proven guilty.It appears he was so considered.A hundred and some years later people claim the authorities of that time got it wrong,and allowed a serial killer to go free. With them is the arrogance.
It's not correct to say "The onus is no Mizen to substantiate that claim with evidence". There is no onus on him at all but, in any event, he DID give his evidence under oath about what Cross said to him. That was the only duty Mizen had to fulfil and he did it.

While Cross, like anyone else, is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty that does not mean that he is entitled to be considered free of suspicion. There is nothing in English law which says that people who have not been proven guilty of a crime cannot be suspected of having committed it. So your post is wrong in a number of material respects.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #614  
Old 07-26-2016, 10:02 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
Perhaps even more to the point, they didn't think it suspicious at the time, but oh I keep forgetting the police were too stupid/biased/unexperienced (whatever you may choose) to find their backside with a mirror on a stick.
I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #615  
Old 07-26-2016, 10:16 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,550
Default

Trevor Marriott: Ok
So out of that list of newspaper reports which do you think is correct, and how can you prove it to be correct.

You should be well aware by now that none of the paper reports can be "proven correct", Trevor. We must look for consistency of reporting - the same sort of report in many papers, unrelated to each other - and consistency with the other known facts, surrounding the case.


If Scobie was given a mish mash of newspaper reports showing the errors I can see why he would have said that, because they all show errors which may not have been attributable to Cross, and so in reality Cross may have not lied.

Iīm sure Scobie knows how to evaluate evidence - it is his job.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #616  
Old 07-26-2016, 10:20 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Fish,

As far as we know, the inquest jury at the time didn't have an issue with the discrepancy. And bear in mind, this was the same jury that 'badgered' Henry Tomkins about where he and Britten had taken their break.

Gary
Well, thatīs not entirely true - one juror was obviously perplexed by one of the discrepancies, and asked Lechmere whether it was really true that he had informed Mizen that another PC was in place, whereupon Lechmere answered in the negative.

Plus, as I have repeatedly pointed out, not a single Ripperologist has seen the explosive power built into these discrepancies before and commented on it. And if 120 years plus of pondering the information given (by die-hard Ripperologists) did not identify this issue, then I donīt think we can raise the claim that an inquest over a few days should detect it.

Last edited by Fisherman : 07-26-2016 at 10:40 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #617  
Old 07-26-2016, 10:24 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 18,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?
Iīd be interested in listening in on the response to that one if I may... As I said, it seems very obvious that Ripperology on the whole has not detected the potential loading of the discrepancy for a 120 year plus, so to treat it as an obvious matter that the police or inquest back then must have seen through it will be a very hard stance to defend.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #618  
Old 07-26-2016, 01:35 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
I would like to ask you a question GUT.

Are you saying that the police investigating the murder of Nichols should have found the discrepancy of evidence suspicious at the time so that they should have investigated it in order to clear Cross from suspicion or are you saying that there is nothing suspicious about Mizen's evidence as to what Cross said to him so that any investigation would obviously have been a waste of time and they would have been right to ignore it?
What I would suggest is that the police and coroner were on the ball enough to say, oh there's a discrepancy there and then ask some questions probably starting with Mizen, maybe progressing onto Cross, and then coming to the conclusion that there was either nothing too it, or some innocent explanation. Just we have no record of it. Just as I believe they made inquiries at Pickford's and about any other witness or person seen around the area not just of this crime but the others as well.

In my opinion any theory that relies on the police being to stupid, inexperienced, incompetent, whatever, to do the very basics of an investigation is clutching at straws.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #619  
Old 07-26-2016, 01:37 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,370
Default

Oh and I'm no fan if the police, but they do the basics pretty darn thoroughly, a bit like the military, they stuff things up, they get things wrong, they make make major mistakes, but they do the basics well.

They don't always think laterally, they don't always think "outside the box" but the "tick all the boxes" sort of stuff they do very well.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #620  
Old 07-26-2016, 01:43 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
*
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
What I would suggest is that the police and coroner were on the ball enough to say, oh there's a discrepancy there and then ask some questions probably starting with Mizen, maybe progressing onto Cross, and then coming to the conclusion that there was either nothing too it, or some innocent explanation. Just we have no record of it. Just as I believe they made inquiries at Pickford's and about any other witness or person seen around the area not just of this crime but the others as well.

In my opinion any theory that relies on the police being to stupid, inexperienced, incompetent, whatever, to do the very basics of an investigation is clutching at straws.
Well that's all fine GUT. In which case you clearly do accept that Mizen's evidence creates, or created, a reason for suspicion against Cross which requires, or required, investigation and/or resolution.

That's all I've been saying.

I have no idea what the police thought about it at the time. I don't want to assume anything about what they thought or did. They might have investigated or resolved it or they might not. But it seems that we both agree that they should have investigated it and/or resolved it.
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 04:08 AM.


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