Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence

[David Orsam]

I have been looking at the newspaper reports of the second day of the Nichols inquest and, from a comparison of those reports (especially comparing mistakes and differences), believe I have identified 8 separate court reporters who attended the inquest on 3 September 1888. These are as follows (with the main newspaper(s) in which their report appeared in parentheses):

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C (Daily News, East London Observer - in expanded form)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, London Weekly News)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Illustrated Police News)
Reporter H (Evening News)

The two points that I hoped this exercise would help to clarify are (i) the time Cross left for work and (ii) Mizen's evidence as to what he was told by Cross.

In respect of (i), Reporters A & B both state that Cross testified to leaving home at 3:20am while the other six state that it was 3:30am. Reporters B and F both state that he arrived at work at 4:00am. While it is obviously possible that A & B both misheard, and perhaps asked one another what had been said, one explanation of the differing accounts might be that Cross's evidence was that he usually left his house at 3:20 in order to get to work at 4:00 but that, on the morning in question, he left at 3:30.

In respect of (ii), my conclusion from considering all the separate reports is that Mizen said he was told by a man [Cross]: "You are wanted in Buck's Row". Then Cross was then brought into court for identification. Then Mizen testified that he asked Cross what the matter was, to which Cross replied: "A policeman wants you. There is a woman lying there". Subsequently, Mizen was asked (either by the Coroner or a juryman) whether Cross had told him that there had been murder [or a suicide] to which he replied: "Cross simply said I was wanted by a policemen and did not say anything about a murder [or suicide] having been committed".

As to (ii), Reporter F has the most comprehensive account (albeit not including the final answer about no murder/suicide). A and B both have the final answer in slight different forms. C, E, F and G all include the part about a woman "lying there" after Mizen says that Cross told him that a policeman wanted him, which leads me to believe this was a separate part of his testimony to the final answer about murder/suicide.

I don't know if anyone else wants to play this game but it would be interesting if any further court reporters could be identified. Also, for the Evening News, I have used the report on this site which ends immediately after Cross is brought in for identification during Mizen's evidence and it might be revealing if a later edition could be traced which includes the rest of Mizen's evidence and the evidence of Cross.

[Simon Owen]

What time do the papers say that Mizen met Cross and Paul ? IIRC some say 4.15am while others say 4.20am.
I have a feeling that Mizen lied about this time to cover himself over the fact that he didn't go and investigate right away , but instead continued to ' knock people up '. Even if we accept that Paul met Cross at 3.46am I would think that the pair would most likely have encountered Mizen before 4am rather than at a later time.

[David Orsam]

Reporters A & B both state that Cross testified to leaving home at 3:20am while the other six state that it was 3:30am

I should have said "while five of the remaining six state that it was 3:30am" - as Reporter H does not report Cross's evidence in the available edition of the Evening News.

[David Orsam]

What time do the papers say that Mizen met Cross and Paul ? IIRC some say 4.15am while others say 4.20am.
I have a feeling that Mizen lied about this time to cover himself over the fact that he didn't go and investigate right away , but instead continued to ' knock people up '. Even if we accept that Paul met Cross at 3.46am I would think that the pair would most likely have encountered Mizen before 4am rather than at a later time.

Hi Simon - both interesting points.

Regarding the time of the meeting, Reporter A says quarter past four, while Reporters D & F both say twenty minutes past four, but B, C, E, G & H all say at or about a quarter to four. I suspect that Reporter A simply mis-read his notes and used "past" instead of "to". I haven't really got a theory as to what caused D & F to hear "4:20" but, in view of the consensus of the other five reporters, 3:45am must be what Mizen said. Consequently, I don't see how it is possible to draw a conclusion that Mizen lied about the time.

In respect of the knocking up, I would submit that Paul's reported criticism that Mizen "continued knocking the people up" needs to be treated with caution. Paul was in a hurry to get to work and rushed away so he could not have had any personal knowledge about what Mizen did next, other than in the immediate few seconds.

As for what Mizen did do, Reporter G seems to carry the fullest account of his evidence on this point, namely: "In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else".

Reporter B corroborates this: "The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued “knocking people up”. He went there immediately".

Reporter C also carries a shorter version of this: "A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".

In other words, Mizen freely admitted that he finished the process of knocking up in which he was engaged at one residence after being told about the body in Buck's Row. But it was just one residence and then he immediately went to Buck's Row.

Now, I don't know if this admission means it was more or less likely for him to have lied about having been told that there was already a policeman on the scene. Perhaps someone more familiar with the regulations could tell us whether this would have been a neglect of duty offence. If it wasn't, then I would suggest that this makes it fairly certain that he told the truth at the inquest because he would then have had no reason to lie.

[GUT]

As for what Mizen did do, Reporter G seems to carry the fullest account of his evidence on this point, namely: "In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else".

Reporter B corroborates this: "The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued “knocking people up”. He went there immediately".

Reporter C also carries a shorter version of this: "A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".

And that s probably what Paul had heard about, probably misunderstanding that Mizan had generally continued his knocking up, so in my opinion it does nothing to diminish Paul's claim to have spoken to Mizen.

[David Orsam]

And that s probably what Paul had heard about

I don't think he heard about anything. His complaint was basically that Mizen did not seem to treat what he had been told seriously: "he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up". No doubt he was exasperated that Mizen did not immediately rush round to Buck's Row but (as Paul could see) continued to knock up. But then Paul left the scene and was unaware that Mizen did in fact go straight to Buck's Row after the knocking up at that single house.

so in my opinion it does nothing to diminish Paul's claim to have spoken to Mizen.

I'm aware that there is an issue about this elsewhere but it seems fairly obvious to me that both Cross and Paul spoke to Mizen. However, Cross was specifically identified as the man who said that Mizen was wanted by a policeman.

[RockySullivan]

What I don't understand is how did Cross nor Paul realize Nichols had her throat slit twice? Also if they pulled down her skirt, how did they not see the mutilations to her abdomen?

"Her throat had been slit twice from left to right and her abdomen mutilated with one deep jagged wound, several incisions across the abdomen, and three or four similar cuts on the right side"

Nichols wiki

[Rosella]

That part of Buck's Row was dark and unlit. They wouldn't have been able to see much at all. In fact it wasn't until Polly was undressed at the mortuary that her stomach mutiations were discovered. Inspector Spratling had to call Dr Llewellyn back, who hadn't noticed the mutilations either.

[Robert]

Well, as for Paul, he probably kept one eye on Cross. I dare say the dodge of getting a passer-by to help a 'woman in distress' only for the passer-by to be thumped and robbed by both man and woman, had been known to occur previously.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Simon - both interesting points.

Regarding the time of the meeting, Reporter A says quarter past four, while Reporters D & F both say twenty minutes past four, but B, C, E, G & H all say at or about a quarter to four. I suspect that Reporter A simply mis-read his notes and used "past" instead of "to". I haven't really got a theory as to what caused D & F to hear "4:20" but, in view of the consensus of the other five reporters, 3:45am must be what Mizen said. Consequently, I don't see how it is possible to draw a conclusion that Mizen lied about the time.

In respect of the knocking up, I would submit that Paul's reported criticism that Mizen "continued knocking the people up" needs to be treated with caution. Paul was in a hurry to get to work and rushed away so he could not have had any personal knowledge about what Mizen did next, other than in the immediate few seconds.

As for what Mizen did do, Reporter G seems to carry the fullest account of his evidence on this point, namely: "In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking people up at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck’s-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else".

Reporter B corroborates this: "The witness was at the time in the act of knocking a man up….It is not true that before he went to Buck’s-row, witness continued “knocking people up”. He went there immediately".

Reporter C also carries a shorter version of this: "A juryman: Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you were wanted? Witness – No. I only finished knocking up one person".

In other words, Mizen freely admitted that he finished the process of knocking up in which he was engaged at one residence after being told about the body in Buck's Row. But it was just one residence and then he immediately went to Buck's Row.

Now, I don't know if this admission means it was more or less likely for him to have lied about having been told that there was already a policeman on the scene. Perhaps someone more familiar with the regulations could tell us whether this would have been a neglect of duty offence. If it wasn't, then I would suggest that this makes it fairly certain that he told the truth at the inquest because he would then have had no reason to lie.

Hi David
Good job-pretty much blows a big hole in the Mizen lied to cover his arse explanation!

[David Orsam]

Hi David
Good job-pretty much blows a big hole in the Mizen lied to cover his arse explanation!

Hi Abby - thank you. What I don't know is whether Mizen was under an absolute obligation to rush straight to Buck's Row without any hesitation, having been told there was a body there, so that his failure to have done so would have brought a neglect of duty charge (unless he believed there was already a fellow policeman at the scene), or whether it was perfectly reasonable for him to have completed the single act of knocking up. Someone like Stewart P. Evans might be able to answer this but so far no takers.

[DRoy]

Hi David
Good job-pretty much blows a big hole in the Mizen lied to cover his arse explanation!

Abby,

Him telling the truth about knocking blows a 'big hole' in Mizen lying to save his arse? Really?

What was Mizen supposed to say? First, Paul had already given his interview so Mizen must have assumed he'd have to answer that question. Second, what would it hurt him if he admitted to knocking up one final door? All he's admitting to is spending one second knocking on a door instead of rushing to the aid of either a passed-out drunk or dead woman. Did he get reprimanded for it?

That in no way has any affect on why he lies about being told he was wanted by a policeman. He testified before they did so he could say it that way to save his arse for not getting their info when he should have. He had to tell that lie or he'd be in big trouble. Much more trouble than knocking on one last door.

That is the true 'Mizen scam'.

Cheers
DRoy

[David Orsam]

He testified before they did so he could say it that way to save his arse for not getting their info when he should have. He had to tell that lie or he'd be in big trouble. Much more trouble than knocking on one last door.

That is the true 'Mizen scam'.

Hi DRoy - that's a fair point. The only comment I would make is that, as I understand it, the sole allegation that had actually been made against Mizen at the time he gave evidence was in respect of his slow response, i.e. that he continued knocking up. Paul had not actually complained about his details not being taken, nor does the point appear to have been raised by the coroner or any of the jurymen. I had understood a number of people on the board to be saying that Mizen was under so much public pressure that he felt he had to lie. He may well have been quietly worried about the fact that he had not taken the informants' names, as you say, but am I right to say that this was never a criticism that was ever levelled against him at the time (as far as we know)?

[DRoy]

He may well have been quietly worried about the fact that he had not taken the informants' names, as you say, but am I right to say that this was never a criticism that was ever levelled against him at the time (as far as we know)?

David,

Not as far as i'm aware either.

The criticism from Paul was that Mizen didn't seem to be in much of a hurry to help the woman they found. Mizen must have been laughing to himself thinking he might only be asked by his superiors why he chose to knock on that last door. That would be easy to explain. But how was he going to save his bacon for not getting their information? Well, one way would be to say he thought the officer that was waiting for him must have got their info previously as that would be procedure.

Cheers
DRoy

[David Orsam]

But how was he going to save his bacon for not getting their information?

Out of interest, do we know if there are any written regulations or orders governing the correct procedure for dealing with informants by officers at the time? Alternatively, are there any records of disciplinary proceedings or even criticisms of constables for similar failings as those now alleged against Mizen?