Lack of Threads

[Columbo]

Or neither had a match on them.

Maybe,but what are the odds that you're gonna get two non-smokers in Victorian England that discover a body?

I would bet that either or both were pipe smokers at the very least. Can't prove it, just my opinion.

Columbo

[GUT]

Maybe,but what are the odds that you're gonna get two non-smokers in Victorian England that discover a body?

I would bet that either or both were pipe smokers at the very least. Can't prove it, just my opinion.

Columbo

And like something else, we all opinions and they're all different.

[Shaggyrand]

Maybe,but what are the odds that you're gonna get two non-smokers in Victorian England that discover a body?

I would bet that either or both were pipe smokers at the very least. Can't prove it, just my opinion.

Columbo

They didn't have to be nonsmokers. They could both have been great lovers of pipes and still not have had a match between them.
Smoking was different. It was more a luxury habit and not usually indulged more than a couple times a day for the majority of smokers. Pipes and cigars were mostly used at home or the pub. Tobacco consumption was on a steady rise since the automated cigarette machine had come along a few years earlier (roughly 5% a year in the UK) but the days of everyone smoking constantly and tobacco costing very little was still a couple decades off.

[Fisherman]

To me, this is an important point. Don't just look at one newspaper account of the Inquest, look at them all.
Unfortunately we don't have an exact word for word account of what was said at the Nichols Inquest. The newspaper accounts will depend on what the reporter heard, what he wrote down, what he typed up to give to his editor, what the editor did to this, and how accurate the typesetter was in the final newspaper edition.
Example:
Mizen's words?:
The Times: When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.
The Star: Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.
The Echo: By the Coroner - There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness. The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross.
The Morning Advertiser: The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross? The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.

So we see that TMA is the only newspaper to report what seems to be the actual words of the Coroner and Mizen. The Coroner asks the questions, Mizen replies. The Times and The Star have made this into a statement that Mizen didn't make.
Then The Echo, which does include what are replies to questions "By the Coroner", adds Mizen's replies as "There was another man in company of Cross when the latter spoke to witness" [compares well to the TMA account - and note that all accounts mention Cross speaking to Mizen, not Paul], and "The other man, who went down Hanbury-street, appeared to be working with Cross" [this must have been in answer to the Cornoer's question, but whether only adding to his response to the Coroner's first question, or answering another question, we do not know].

The TMA account of "The other man, who went down Hanbury-street" changes to "both went down Hanbury St" in The Times and The Star.

Why this happened, and what Mizen actually did say, are both open to question, and we will never know for sure.

Good observations, Billiou!I will add a few bits and bobs too:

It is correct to say that we will never know for sure exactly what Mizen sais in this errand. But that does not mean that we cannot build a theory against the carman.
However, since I point to the Echo, it is often said that I cherrypick, and I normally respond by saying yes, in a sense I do.
What I am doing is to look at whether there is evidence that supports my take on the matter, and whether there is evidence that makes the theory impossible.
In this matter there is nothing to make the theory impossible. Some say that the information that the carmen were together means that Paul must have heard all that was said, but I mean that being together does not necessarily mean being physically close together. If they arrived in tandem, and Paul then stood aside, waiting for Lechmere to speak to Mizen, then they would still have been together in Mizens eyes.
It can also be pointed out that the Echo report is the one and only report that positions any of the actors of the drama anywhere - Paul went down Hanbury Street.
No other report says anything at all about the positions of the actors, the distance inbetween them and at what stage they came and left.

Overall, this is just one of the many instances where there could have been evidence to disprove the theory, but where no such evidence is to be found. Instead, there is a piece of information that seeminlgy strengthens the theory. And this holds true all the way, throughout the whole flood of information - a chain of events that fits the theory can be formed by using various parts of the material. And that is how we should expect things to look, if the theory offers the real solution - a very thin line can be seen when looking very closely at the matter.
If it had instead been a broad stroke of a brush, it would all have been revealed 128 years ago.

[drstrange169]

Deleted

Post came through corrupted.

[drstrange169]

Try two!

>>... whenever somebody says that Paul spoke to Mizen, then that somebody is Lechmere.<<

"I told him (Mizen) what I had seen"
Robert Paul


>>Mizen explicitely says that "a man" came up to him and spoke, and he never says that TWO men did.

There is no first person account recorded where Mizen "explicitly" uses the words "a man".

Papers like the Morning News give, what appears to be, the only version of a first-person account by Mizen of the initial meeting,

"I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said ..."

This, of course, describes the opening encounter and no way reflects what might or might not have happened with regards to who spoke after that.

The term "a man" was a journalist concocted phrase.

"...he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man ..."
The Times


>>Why would Mizen say this if it was not true? It would be rather an elaborate lie on his behalf.<<

A lie or an extremely easy mistake to make.


>> Lechmere says that both men spoke to the PC, but Mizen says that "A man" did the talking.<<

No he doesn't.


>>The surroundings were crammed with PC:s and watchmen, and he would take a tremendeous risk by running.<<

Ergo, it was a tremendous risk to commit the murder at that spot and yet that's indisputably what happened.

It was this killer's modus operandi to take risks.


>>And still, the coroner said that given the amount of PC:s and watchmen in the vicinity, it was "nothing less than astonishing" that the killer could slip away.<<

According to the Times, what Baxter actually said was,

"It seems astonishing at first thought that the culprit should have escaped detection, for there must surely have been marks of blood about his person. If, however, blood was principally on his hands, the presence of so many slaughter-houses in the neighbourhood would make the frequenters of this spot familiar with blood- stained clothes and hands, and his appearance might in that way have failed to attract attention while he passed from Buck's-row in the twilight into Whitechapel-road, and was lost sight of in the morning's market traffic."

Which, of course, is completely different.


>>There is also the blood to consider.<<

Nowhere is Mizen reported as seeing partially congealed blood on his arrival.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9386&page=15

Post #594, explains this in detail.

[Billiou]

Try two!

>>... whenever somebody says that Paul spoke to Mizen, then that somebody is Lechmere.<<

"I told him (Mizen) what I had seen"
Robert Paul


>>Mizen explicitely says that "a man" came up to him and spoke, and he never says that TWO men did.

There is no first person account recorded where Mizen "explicitly" uses the words "a man".

Papers like the Morning News give, what appears to be, the only version of a first-person account by Mizen of the initial meeting,

"I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said ..."

This, of course, describes the opening encounter and no way reflects what might or might not have happened with regards to who spoke after that.

The term "a man" was a journalist concocted phrase.

"...he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man ..."
The Times


>> Lechmere says that both men spoke to the PC, but Mizen says that "A man" did the talking.<<

[/B]No he doesn't.

Note: Paul does not say anything about talking to Mizen in his reported Inquest statement. What has been quoted was from his statement to the Lloyd's Weekly. Notice his Lloyd's statement does not mention that Cross was with him when he met Mizen, so what do we do with that if we taking his Lloyd's statement in complete faith?

Note: Every newspaper account opens Mizen's account with reporting that he said "a man" who was passing spoke to him.
eg The Morning Advertiser: "Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, 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). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question)."

Agree it may not reflect what might or might not have been spoken after that. But nowhere does any newspaper report that Mizen said Paul talked to him.

"A journalist concocted phrase". I think "concocted" would be too strong a word. I believe, since nearly every newspaper uses the same term, that that is what Mizen must have said.

>> Lechmere says that both men spoke to the PC, but Mizen says that "A man" did the talking.<<

[/B]No he doesn't.

Well, in no report does Mizen mention anyone other than Cross talking to him. And we have the account above "the man who spoke to him on the morning in question" to consider.

I leave open the possibility that Paul may have spoken, but Mizen either didn't hear or didn't remember hearing what Paul said. For all we know Cross and Paul may have been talking at the same time as they were passing and Mizen didn't hear Paul clearly. He couldn't quote what he didn't hear could he?

[Billiou]

>>There is also the blood to consider.<<

Nowhere is Mizen reported as seeing partially congealed blood on his arrival.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9386&page=15

Post #594, explains this in detail.

Not on his first arrival at the scene, but after he had come back with the ambulance and had helped move the body.

[Fisherman]

Note: Paul does not say anything about talking to Mizen in his reported Inquest statement. What has been quoted was from his statement to the Lloyd's Weekly. Notice his Lloyd's statement does not mention that Cross was with him when he met Mizen, so what do we do with that if we taking his Lloyd's statement in complete faith?

Note: Every newspaper account opens Mizen's account with reporting that he said "a man" who was passing spoke to him.
eg The Morning Advertiser: "Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, 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). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question)."

Agree it may not reflect what might or might not have been spoken after that. But nowhere does any newspaper report that Mizen said Paul talked to him.

"A journalist concocted phrase". I think "concocted" would be too strong a word. I believe, since nearly every newspaper uses the same term, that that is what Mizen must have said.

>> Lechmere says that both men spoke to the PC, but Mizen says that "A man" did the talking.<<

[/B]No he doesn't.

Well, in no report does Mizen mention anyone other than Cross talking to him. And we have the account above "the man who spoke to him on the morning in question" to consider.

I leave open the possibility that Paul may have spoken, but Mizen either didn't hear or didn't remember hearing what Paul said. For all we know Cross and Paul may have been talking at the same time as they were passing and Mizen didn't hear Paul clearly. He couldn't quote what he didn't hear could he?

Bravo, Billiou!

[Fisherman]

Not on his first arrival at the scene, but after he had come back with the ambulance and had helped move the body.

Here´s what I think represents the real picture. It´s from the Echo f the 3:rd:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when 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." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So here it is established that Mizen spoke of the running blood in relation to when he arrived at the murder scene just after Neil. That was when the blood was running - which is of course the only really credible scenario.
I think that the same schedule holds true for the coagulated blood. Mizen said that it was "somewhat congealed", which fits in very well with the fact that blood starts to be visibly congealed after 3-4 minutes. It is then fully coagulated after around seven minutes, but if there is more running blood added all the time, it will be only "somewhat congealed".
When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, half an hour had passed, and the blood would have been as described by Thain: a large clot.

[Patrick S]

Here´s what I think represents the real picture. It´s from the Echo f the 3:rd:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when 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." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So here it is established that Mizen spoke of the running blood in relation to when he arrived at the murder scene just after Neil. That was when the blood was running - which is of course the only really credible scenario.
I think that the same schedule holds true for the coagulated blood. Mizen said that it was "somewhat congealed", which fits in very well with the fact that blood starts to be visibly congealed after 3-4 minutes. It is then fully coagulated after around seven minutes, but if there is more running blood added all the time, it will be only "somewhat congealed".
When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, half an hour had passed, and the blood would have been as described by Thain: a large clot.

If this is the "real story" then this statement (below) is all invention, correct?

Keep in mind that this statement was made by Paul on his way HOME from work. He'd run into Cross and Mizen on his way TO work that same day (Friday). So, while at work on Friday, he decided to cook up an elaborate and unflattering invention about Mizen's reaction and what he was told in Baker's Row. Why? He got bored at work and decided - for no reason - to focus on Mizen's reaction more so than the murder, the DEAD BODY he found lying in the street?

Let's take Cross/Lechmere out of the equation for a moment, as he is - in your scenario - Jack the Ripper. Let's deal only with Mizen and Paul. Of the two, who had a REASON to misrepresent what was said in Baker's Row? Paul or Mizen? The PC who - according to Paul - failed to react appropriately, continued calling people up, didn't say if he would go to Buck's Row at all or Paul, and represented a police force already under fire in print for lack of effectiveness? One thing cannot be debated: For Robert Paul we must INVENT any motivation or reason for his misrepresentation of his interaction with Mizen. Further, in Paul's telling we hear next to nothing about your murderer (Cross/Lechmere). He killed Nichols, hung around and enlisted Paul to help him cover it up, went with Paul to find Mizen, yet he made - seemingly - no impression on Paul whatsoever. AH! Not so of Mizen, however. He made QUITE an impression on Paul, didn't he? He inspired indignation, disappointment, and outrage, didn't he? Yet it's on HIS words you base your entire house of cards!



"On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head. "

[Columbo]

Here´s what I think represents the real picture. It´s from the Echo f the 3:rd:

Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when 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." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.

The Coroner - Was there anyone else there then? - No one at all, Sir. There was blood running from the throat towards the gutter.

So here it is established that Mizen spoke of the running blood in relation to when he arrived at the murder scene just after Neil. That was when the blood was running - which is of course the only really credible scenario.
I think that the same schedule holds true for the coagulated blood. Mizen said that it was "somewhat congealed", which fits in very well with the fact that blood starts to be visibly congealed after 3-4 minutes. It is then fully coagulated after around seven minutes, but if there is more running blood added all the time, it will be only "somewhat congealed".
When Mizen arrived back with the ambulance, half an hour had passed, and the blood would have been as described by Thain: a large clot.

Hi Fisherman,

So 20 minutes past four? it took them half an hour to find Mizen?

For my own clarification I thought Cross had to be at work at 4am. Am I incorrect?

Columbo

[Columbo]

They didn't have to be nonsmokers. They could both have been great lovers of pipes and still not have had a match between them.
Smoking was different. It was more a luxury habit and not usually indulged more than a couple times a day for the majority of smokers. Pipes and cigars were mostly used at home or the pub. Tobacco consumption was on a steady rise since the automated cigarette machine had come along a few years earlier (roughly 5% a year in the UK) but the days of everyone smoking constantly and tobacco costing very little was still a couple decades off.

Gotta disagree with you there. Smoking has always been a poor man's pleasure as well as high society. The only difference was the quality of tobacco available. these guys rolled there own, or piped it. Just like today they made allowances for their vices just like they did for their booze and women.

Columbo

[Harry D]

... so he did not mind if she cried her heart out? Were the walls and windows isolated so as not to let any sound through?

You don't see the difference in murdering in his own home compared to murdering on the streets or in a whore's bedroom with a broken window? We're also assuming that the murder was premeditated, when in his own words he killed her in a drunken rage.

On top of that, if Bury HAD cut Ellen's throat, it would've definitely buggered up his accidental death defence.

Also, keep in mind that Polly Nichols seemingly had her abdomen cut BEFORE the neck was cut. Or so Llewellyn said, at least, but maybe we can drop that...?

Maybe Polly began to regain consciousness and this was the origin of the Ripper's throat-cutting?

[Shaggyrand]

Gotta disagree with you there. Smoking has always been a poor man's pleasure as well as high society. The only difference was the quality of tobacco available. these guys rolled there own, or piped it. Just like today they made allowances for their vices just like they did for their booze and women.

Columbo

I never said they didn't smoke because they were poor or that they didn't make allowances for it. I said it was culturally approached differently. People smoked considerably less. The average per capita intake was only the equivalent of about 60 cigarettes a year but rising steadily, eventually reaching 94 in 1910. It wasn't until 1920 that the number skyrocketed to 498 per year and kept increasing from there. That's when it became treated much like it is today (average smoker in the UK 795 a year, the US roughly 1,500). In 1888 cigarettes were still fairly expensive, the automated process having just started in 1884. So it was mostly pipes. Yes, there were cheaper blends but it was still a much lower intake by the average smoker. The only group that smoked in a way that is comparable to modern smokers were upper class cigar smokers and that would have been financially prohibitive for them to smoke heavily, no matter what allowances they made.