Witnesses Statements Incriminating Charles Cross

[Fisherman]

Monty: Mizen's stated time ties in with ... the statements of Cross, Paul, Neil and Kirby.

Paul said that he was in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.
Mizen said that Paul arrived with Lechmere at 3.45.

It therefore does not tie in.

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

This does read to me as though Mizen was at least aware of Robert Paul's claims and would indeed have assumed this was the same man who had told him about Nichols (until Cross appeared), because Paul said he was a carman and the man did look like one to Mizen.

How on earth would this tell us that Mizen was aware of any claims on pauls behalf?

Mizen (and everyone else at the inquest) only 'now' knew the man to be named Cross because Cross had obliged by coming forward to correct any misapprehensions and to identify himself as the one Mizen was talking about. Had he not done so I have little doubt that everyone would have assumed it was Paul who had told Mizen he was wanted in Buck's Row.

Everyone who had read the papers, you mean? But the police did not believe in Paul, Caz. They categorically denied what he said in his interview. It was not until Lechmere came forward that there was ever any acceptance of the carmen being the finder.
That is not to say that Lechmere could have gotten clean away. Sooner or later, somebody would have picked up on Mizens story and the hunt would have been on.

By swapping the roles round to give himself the glory, Paul is offering a guilty Lechmere a free lifeline here, yet he tosses this aside in his eagerness to claim back the centre stage nobody else knew he had even occupied? If it's true that only one man spoke to Mizen, Paul was unlikely to volunteer the fact that it was the other man, and if he was forced to admit it, it would merely give that man back the glory he deserved.

Ha! No, Caz, it would provide the police with the newfound knowledge that a man who had afterwards disappeared, had originally been found alone with the victim. I am anything but sure that the police would erect a statue in commemoration of him. Then again, I AM a cynical bastard...

By the way, how do you explain Mizen's timing in the above quote? Was it meant to read twenty minutes to four, which would seem to make more sense? There is no way the men raised the alarm with Mizen as late as twenty minutes past four, is there?

Short and sweet: no.

Do we know what time - roughly - he was sent for the ambulance?

"We" donīt. Monty has a schedule of his own, as has Dr Strange and a lot of other people.

My estimation would be roughly 3.52.

[Monty]

No, Paul stated he left his house at about 3.45am

Therefore, the estimations tie in. There is no huge discrepancy and, again, no reason to dispute Mizen.

The fact there is still a reliance on suspect interpretation of the English language kinda highlights just how dead this duck is.

Monty

[Fisherman]

No, Paul stated he left his house at about 3.45am

Therefore, the estimations tie in. There is no huge discrepancy and, again, no reason to dispute Mizen.

The fact there is still a reliance on suspect interpretation of the English language kinda highlights just how dead this duck is.

Monty

They donīt tie in. For Mizen to be correct on 3.45, Paul needed to have left his home at 3.40.
Plus he said in the paper interview that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he walked into Bucks row. And THAT ties in with him leaving "just before a quarter to four" (Daily News) or he "at about a quarter to four o'clock" (IPN). Thatīs English language for you.

The duckīs alive and kicking therefore, your behind not least.

[caz]

The horse slaughterers arrived at 4.20am, because that was their usual knocking off time. However, instead of going home, they went to see the body.

Mizen was informed at 3.45 am.

Monty

Cheers, Monty. As I thought. So the 'twenty minutes past four' according to Fisherman's earlier quote was a reporting or typing error, presumably.

Love,

Caz
X

[drstrange169]

"Daily News) or he "at about a quarter to four o'clock" (IPN). Thatīs English language for you."

The English language would define 3:40 as "about a quarter to four".

[Monty]

Cheers, Monty. As I thought. So the 'twenty minutes past four' according to Fisherman's earlier quote was a reporting or typing error, presumably.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes Caz,

Which proves that one must act (in both formulating and assessing) with caution when dealing with secondary sources.

Monty

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

The English language would define 3:40 as "about a quarter to four".

Point taken. And a good one it is! May I then take it that the English language would equally define 3:50 as "about a quarter to four"? Because "about a quarter to four" was what Mizen said.

Or maybe, just maybe, it only works the one way?

One may also add that if the PC:s were going by hearing the clock strike, then the quarter strike would have been heard by those who were around at 3:50, whereas the same people would not have heard that same strike when the clock was 3:40 only.

This means that if these PC:s asked themselves "letīs see now, when was the last time I heard the clock strike?", they would perhaps be less likely to answer that question "ah yes, it was the half hour strike, and I am sure that fifteen minutes has passed since then" and more inclined to reason "well, the clock only just struck the quarter hour, so that is the approximate time".

That, though, predisposes that they WERE allowed to reason that 3:50 was equal to "about 3:45". But I am sure that you can help me out and explain whether this was so!