Lack of Threads

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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.

[drstrange169]

Deleted

Post came through corrupted.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

It is interesting that, as far as I know, neither of them struck a match. That makes me think there was enough lighting for them to just make out Polly but not enough as to show details, i.e. flowing blood.

Columbo

Or neither had a match on them.

[Columbo]

One point that i think it's interesting is the fact that, apparently, nor Lechmere nor Paul have any means to shed some light on the scene, while the policemen were equipped with their lanterns.

Their behaviour at the scene, try to move the woman or check for her body to verify the presence of life or not, it's valid given that they may have not able to see the still flowing blood.

Apart from that...well, i'm not the kind that use to explain strange or daring behaviours with insanity or some unexplainable mystery with the use of superpowers...but whoever run from Buck's Row MAY have been the same human who escaped from Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square in the same night, so i'm not that impressed that he may have performed a similar feat before.

It is interesting that, as far as I know, neither of them struck a match. That makes me think there was enough lighting for them to just make out Polly but not enough as to show details, i.e. flowing blood.

Columbo

[Columbo]

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.

Well done.

It's gonna boil down to what you want to believe, but as Fisherman has stated you have to look at the whole picture with Lechmere, and take everything into context.

Columbo

[Columbo]

As i wrote, what we were left with about that night is so convuleted that it's just natural that we tend to pick what we are inclined to believe, and dismiss everything else. The first thing i asked myself when i readed about the Lechmere theory was what i already asked you: since it's seems corroborated that Paul and Lechmere both get in contact with Mizen, how is possible that Lechmere talk about a policemen that Paul could have not seen, without Paul pointing that out? Stating that "Mizen talked with Lechmere only" or "Paul was not involved in the conversation" or similar, is not a satisfactory answer. It does not help that Mizen was apparently not able to remember himself if he talked with one guy, or two.

If a policeman was indeed mentioned, it's more likely, at that point, that the two were in league with each other. Or that Paul did not care at all about what happened. Sure thing is, a supposedly guilty Lechmere took an enormous risk in trying a so blunt lie in front of someone who could unmaks it almost immediatly.

Let's assume, however, and whetever a policeman was mentioned or not, that the two just informed Mizen that there was something in need of his attention, and that something was a possibly attacked woman. Whatever the ramification of that conversation was, Mizen was probably supposed to stop the men and go there with them no matter what was said, and who said it. He did not, and we don't know why. It's likely, however, that he did it in good faith, possibly believing that whatever was happening required indeed it's immediate presence.

One thing that puzzles me, on this point, is why Mizen did not try to insist about having been fooled by Lechmere about the policeman thing (given that he may have supposed he was). And if he did, why none apparently took him seriously.

I don't have the knowledge i would need to state that Lechmere, or whoever else, could have been able or not to sneak away given what kind of surveillance was in the area (which i don't know either). However, we know that, by the minute, three policemen were going to be in the immediate area of the corpse, so it does not appear impossible to me that someone could have not escape elsewhere in the meanwhile.

You do very well with your english. You say it's a second language?

I think technically he wasn't fooled but lied to about a cop being there. It just happened to work out in Lechmere's favor. Good point none the less.

Columbo

[Billiou]

My advice to anybody who wants to study the Nichols murder is to try and differentiate between the sources.

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.

[Columbo]

Not that this isn't interesting, but we sure got off topic of the thread.

Columbo