The Mizen scam

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Again Fisherman,

I really enjoyed your article and I think you have raised some very interesting points regarding the Bucks Row murder. The following hasn’t attracted much attention yet, but I found this particular point to be something that may have far more significance than it first appears

‘But if we examine maps of the area, we will notice that it was impossible to see all the way from the murder spot down to Baker’s Row – the schoolhouse obscured the view. Therefore Neil could not have seen Mizen there. But, of course, we know that Mizen had left Baker’s Row, and was walking towards PC Neil, having been told that there was a PC waiting for him. And therefore, when Neil saw Mizen, the latter would probably have been in the vicinity of Thomas Street.’

Here are some questions and points I hope you will consider

What about if we place Neil on the other side of the road, just as he was ringing the bell at Essex wharf, how far up the road can he see then ?

Should Mizen actually be in Bucks row at all, wether in the vicinity of Thomas Street or not, I didn’t think this was part of Mizen’s beat ?

Also, If the junction with Thomas street was the place where Neil first saw Mizen, wouldn’t Neil ask Mizen what he was doing there? Or perhaps Neil is accustomed to seeing Mizen in places which weren’t on his beat, knocking people up for example.

Also, Neil claims he searched the nearby ground, whilst waiting for Thain and Mizen to return, presumably using his lamp as it was dark at the time. If he was also searching the ground before Mizen arrived on the scene, could Mizen have mistaken this movement of Neil’s lamp as he searched the ground as a signal, and then signalled back with his own lamp. Neil would then think that Mizen was signalling to him for the first time and signalled back himself. I think they may have both believed that the other person signalled first, perhaps eliminating the need for any explanation between the two policemen, involving the idea that it was two carmen that have told Mizen that ‘he was wanted’, after all, there are lines in the press such as the following :-

‘He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it , he was answered by the lights of two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leave the spot, and the mystery is most complete.’- The Western Daily Press, Bristol. Tuesday September 4, 1888

I feel that it is important to note as well, that Neil did actually ‘want’ Mizen for something, he sent him for the ambulance and assistance from Bethnal Green. As Mizen explains in his testimony -

‘I went up Buck’s Row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, “Go for an ambulance,” and I at once went to the station and returned with it ’ - The Western Daily Press, Bristol. Tuesday September 4, 1888

Thanks and best wishes

[Rubyretro]

A very interesting article, Fish, and well written.

I have always believed that the killer knew the beats of the various policemen
patrolling each murder site.

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"Quick questions relevant to the thread:

Who took Cross & Paul's personal details? If the answer is P.c. Mizen, why did he need to do that if he believed that another officer had already spoken to them, and that they had seen nothing?

If not, P.c. Mizen, who else?"

By now, Colin, I think the answer is that absolutely noone took them! In my article, I guessed that Mizen did so, but there is a very revealing article in the Echo of the 3:rd, that goes like this:

"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."

So, Colin, Mizen only THOUGHT the guy that spoke to him looked like a carman, but at the inquest he had had it confirmed, plus he now also knew the man to be named Cross!
Conclusion: Mizen did NOT take down their particulars.
He relied on his colleague, and wisely so: Either that colleague knew that there was a need to do so, or perhaps the carmen had arrived late to the stage, meaning that he needed not to do so, knowing that the men had nothing to do with it all; this is how Mizen will have reasoned.

But we all know that the colleague was a fictive one, invented by Lechmere.
So who took the names?

As I said: Nobody did. Lechmere MUST have reported in to the police voluntarily. We know that he appeared at the inquest in his working clothes, as opposed to everybody else, and the conclusion I draw from that is that he never told his wife that he was going there. This is further strengthened by the fact that the police never found out his true name, something they would inevitably have done if they had visited 22 Doveton Street.
It is all in keeping with the picture. Lechmere reported in to the police himself, called himself "Cross" and gave his real address, hoping that the police would find him totally unsuspicious and a good citizen - which they did. His wife and family never found out, and the same would have gone for his colleagues at work. He invented a man that did not exist other than in relation to the murder, and who quietly went off the radar for more than a hundred years afterwards!

So once again, the cool calculator in action, Colin. Covering his behind, as ever, by giving the correct address and a tolerable name, and having things develop in the exact fashion he had hoped for. If he had been checked out at home, he could still have weathered the storm.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

So he presented himself to the Police?

The guy who killed Polly, who nobody at the scene knows, handed himself to the police and gave his details?

Instead of just slipping away.


Far fetched.

Very far fetched.

Monty

[FrankO]

That was always on the cards - but keep in mind that he may have picked up on where Neil was by hearing him as he passed through Baker´s Row, a mere 60-70 yards from where Lechmere and Paul encountered Mizen. But equally, it may apply that he kept close track of the time, as perhaps implied by the other deeds.

Hi Fish!

I have a few comments regarding the above.

The fact of the matter is that none of the 3 men (Cross, Paul & Neil) mentioned anything about hearing of seeing the other(s). Nor is there any implication or suggestion that Cross kept a close track of time other than that he claimed to be behind time. If Neil actually did enter Baker Street from Whitechapel Road while Cross & Paul were between Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street, they were only between 65 and 130 yards in front of him. Judging by the fact that Neil heard Thain some 130 yards away, it is very odd that Neil didn’t mention having heard or seen Cross & Paul when he later found Nichols’ body. In fact, he explicitly mentioned only seeing some women in Whitechapel Road and the men at the slaughterhouse, but nothing about 2 men in Baker’s Row.

It’s very likely that if Neil entered Baker’s Row, Cross & Paul – at best – were already very close to Hanbury Street or had already turned the corner. Or, which seems even more likely and supported by at least Neil’s testimony as presented in the East End Observer of 8 September, he entered Buck’s Row through Thomas Street. If we assume that he in fact did, then the sequence of events would easily fit, while they don’t if we assume Neil entered Buck’s Row through Baker’s Row. For Cross to have heard Neil walking up Baker’s Row, Neil would end up too close in front of Mizen. Remember that Mizen found Neil already in place, that Neil had in fact already examined the body and sent Thain for a doctor, and that it seems that Neil spotted Mizen when he was still some distance from the crime spot.

All the best!
Frank

[Cogidubnus]

Irony

Stone me...the things that happen in this game...I find myself totally in agreement with Moonbegger (despite his/her spelling of knowledge)...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Stone me...the things that happen in this game...I find myself totally in agreement with Moonbegger (despite his/her spelling of knowledge)...

All the best

Dave

It's happened to me too, Dave. Quite disconcerting!

Regards, Colin.

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger:

"I Think that if i was aware of the local bobby's beat , as you suggest he was, i would most definitely navigate my way around it . "

You are mistaking different beats here - Lechmere would have had Neils beat under control, but NO the surrounding ones, arguably.

"If Lechmere killed Polly , and was fully aware of the local police beats, he would have also been aware of the approaching Paul , and would have been clean out of sight before paul even reached the spot where Polly's body lay."

Wherever did you get that from? Why would he be aware of the approaching Paul, late to work?

"For me , the mind of the Ripper was more that of a cold calculating assassin , as opposed to that of a schoolboy prankster looking to get his kicks , or a couple trying to spice up their shenanigans ."

And?

"If Paul had caught him off gaurd and red handed , i could see how your scenario could play out , And he would have no other choice but to play his hand the way you suggest . But he didn't catch him doing anything other than standing in the middle of the street. "

And Lechmere would have known this how? Just how could he be certain of what Paul had seen? Maybe we sho8uld weigh that in too?

"HE WASN'T PRIVY TO THE KNOWLAGE THAT NO ONE WAS WATCHING .. and could have possibly pointed the finger at him as being the killer ...."

He was not, no. And so he had to take his chances in that department. Maybe he simply felt that if somebody was watching him, cutting a woman up, that somebody would have yelled for the police. He WAS a risktaker any way we cut things, Moonbegger. If he was afraid of being seen from a window, he would not have killed. Nobody forced him to.

"And of all the things the Killer was , a fool i think is not one of them .. "

Do you think the man I describe is a fool? Is that it? Myself, I think I am describing a risktaker with a very quck mind, able to bluff himself out of severe difficulties.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mr Lucky:

"What about if we place Neil on the other side of the road, just as he was ringing the bell at Essex wharf, how far up the road can he see then ?"

Much the same thing; perhpas a glimpse could be seen of Baker´s Row, but seeing Mizen there would postulate that he was standing still in the few inches of the street that could be seen.

"Should Mizen actually be in Bucks row at all, wether in the vicinity of Thomas Street or not, I didn’t think this was part of Mizen’s beat ?"

He should not - he only got there after having been sent off by Lechmere.

"If the junction with Thomas street was the place where Neil first saw Mizen, wouldn’t Neil ask Mizen what he was doing there?"

It was dark, Mr Lucky, and it would have been very hard for Neil to establish the exact distance.

"could Mizen have mistaken this movement of Neil’s lamp as he searched the ground as a signal, and then signalled back with his own lamp. "

Perhaps. But Neil stated that he actively signalled both Thain and Mizen. Maybe he saw the approaching Mizen, lamp in hand, and thought he was still up in the vicinity of Baker´s Row as he signalled him.

"I think they may have both believed that the other person signalled first, perhaps eliminating the need for any explanation between the two policemen, involving the idea that it was two carmen that have told Mizen that ‘he was wanted"

It seems obvious that the carmen were not mentioned when Mizen and Neil met. Neil denied having been called to the spot by two men, that´s what it says in the papers, and the question would have been out to him only after Mizen had been spoken to by his superiors.

The best, Mr Lucky! And thanks, by the way!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"A very interesting article, Fish, and well written."

Many thanks!

Your slippery friend,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"So he presented himself to the Police?
The guy who killed Polly, who nobody at the scene knows, handed himself to the police and gave his details?
Instead of just slipping away.
Far fetched.
Very far fetched.
Monty"

It is obvious that this is what he did. The Echo of the 3:rd gives away that Mizen only thought the guy who had spoken to him was a carman, and goes on to state that the PC was now (at the inquest, but not before) informed that the man was indeed a carman, just as he had guessed, and went on to state that Mizen now (at the inquest, but not before) knew him to be named Cross.

That tells me that Mizen did not know the names and occupations of the carmen. Therefore, he was not the one who took their particulars.

And apart from Mizen, there was nobody else who could have done so. The conclusion becomes inevitable: Nobody knew the men by name. If you take a look at the Times of the 3:rd, you will find this passage:

" It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and flashing his lantern to examine it, he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street."

At this stage, through Mizens communication with his superiors, the police knew that he claimed that two men had approached him and talked about a PC in Buck´s Row, and it must have been assumed that this PC was Neil, but he fervently denied it. Please note that the paper does not speak of two carmen - for Mizen did not know at this stage that this was so!

The only viable explanation to how "Cross" was found, is that Lechmere contacted them himself, possibly after having read Pauls paper interview, giving away that there had been a carman alone in Buck´s Row with the victim. Lechmere walked those streets every day, and the chance that he could do so undetected was minimal. He must have realized that, just as he must have realized that the police were very keen to lay their hands on him. And therefore, he must have taken care of things himself, avoiding any search for him, avoding too much interest in him, evoked by his absence and avoiding - as it seems - that the police spoke to either family or workmates, in which case they would have found out about his name.

There is nothing far-fetched about this, Monty. If Mizen did not know his name until the inquest, then there were nobody else who could have noted it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Frank:

"The fact of the matter is that none of the 3 men (Cross, Paul & Neil) mentioned anything about hearing of seeing the other(s)."

Correct. But IF Lechmere heard Neil, it stands to reason that he would only use it, and not give it away.

"Nor is there any implication or suggestion that Cross kept a close track of time other than that he claimed to be behind time."

The implication of course lies in the fact that he got this correct, Frank - that very much implicates that he knew. And he would not give that away either, would he?
As a matter of fact, he could also have chanced it and gotten lucky - in which case the same lie would serve him equally well at the inquest, and it would still be corroborated by Paul and Neil. Like I say, it was foolproof and watertight!

"If Neil actually did enter Baker Street from Whitechapel Road while Cross & Paul were between Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street, they were only between 65 and 130 yards in front of him. Judging by the fact that Neil heard Thain some 130 yards away, it is very odd that Neil didn’t mention having heard or seen Cross & Paul when he later found Nichols’ body."

We can rule out the "seen" I think, but the "heard" is of interest. And it all boils down to how loudly the men spoke. And we can safely assume that if Lechmere did not want Paul to hear the scam he served Mizen, he would not speak loudly. We may perhaps also assume that conversations held at 3.45 in the morning were not very loud ones, perhaps explaining, taken together with the fact that there was a building between Neil and Mizen/Paul/Lechmere, why Neil missed out on a low-key conversation. He said nothing about hearing the knocks Mizen delivered on the doors either, mind you!
Lechmere, though, may have heard Neils police boots in the distance. Or he may have kept track of the timings. Or he may have chanced. Whichever way, he got it all together.

"It’s very likely that if Neil entered Baker’s Row, Cross & Paul – at best – were already very close to Hanbury Street or had already turned the corner. Or, which seems even more likely and supported by at least Neil’s testimony as presented in the East End Observer of 8 September, he entered Buck’s Row through Thomas Street. If we assume that he in fact did, then the sequence of events would easily fit, while they don’t if we assume Neil entered Buck’s Row through Baker’s Row."

It´s another possibility, yes. And, just like you say, perhaps the likelier one. And if we have Lechmere and Paul taking a right into Baker´s Row seconds before Neil took HIS right into Buck´s ditto, then we still have no more than perhaps 90-100 yards inbetween them, enabling Lechmere to hear Neils steps.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Now Known To Be

"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."

Hi Fish,

I don't think too much can be read into this particular statement. It's quite usual for a police officer to refer, in evidence, to "a man I now know to be". This doesn't necessarily mean that the officer didn't record the person's details. (Mizen certainly should have done). It simply means that the officer was approached by a man he didn't already know. "I saw a man I now know to be" is a phrase I've used many times myself. It simply means he's unknown - or at least not recognised - at the time of the initial contact. The phrase would still be used, even by an officer who recorded the person's details moments later, because he doesn't know who the person is until their identity has been given and verified.

I'm not trying to suggest that this undermines your case, because it doesn't, but it's not a plank in the structure upon which too much weight should be placed, in my view, if I can put it that way.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fisherman]

Okay, Bridewell. But there is also the snag that it says "...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..."

So, this person only LOOKED like a carman...? Why would Mizen say this if he KNEW that the man was a carman? That is strange prose, is it not? And it goes on to say "Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman", meaning - at least in my world, that Mizen NOW had had confirmation of his suspicion.

I also recognize the phrasing you are talking about, but I would say that a policeman who phrased himself "a man I know to be a carman" would be exactly what you talk about - a policeman with knowledge about another man´s profession. But a policeman who says "a man I NOW know to be a carman" is a policeman who has formerly been unknowing or mistaken about the other mans profession.

Which means that I would have liked the phrasing "witness knew the mans name to be Cross" to end up in your position, and not "witness NOW knew the mans name to be Cross". This very clearly points to a new-found knowledge, and the "now" would have been completely superfluos in a context where that knowledge was all that needed to be established. AND confusing, to boot.

You are the Brit, I am the Swede, of course, but I have had confirmation from another Brit that I make the correct interpretation here. Also, you are the ex-copper and I am not - so maybe you have something going for you in this errand, Colin. I would like others to chime in, who have specific knowledge, at any rate.


The best,
Fisherman

[FrankO]

The implication of course lies in the fact that he got this correct, Frank - that very much implicates that he knew.

Like I said, Fish, there’s nothing in the evidence that suggests Cross could or would have known where Neil was as exactly at what moment, that he could or would have calculated when Neil would arrive at the crime spot. Therefore, based on the evidence, it's fair to conclude it was rather lucky that Mizen found Neil in place at the crime spot and on top of things. For all we know, Mizen could have joined Neil before he reached the crime spot, or only just after he had arrived, or even later, when Neil had sent another one for the ambulance and would have time to talk to Mizen about the 2 men Mizen had seen.

Only if you regard it more or less as fact that Cross was the guilty party who wanted to con his way out of things, then, yes, you’d say that it very much implies that Cross was in the know.

As a matter of fact, he could also have chanced it and gotten lucky - in which case the same lie would serve him equally well at the inquest, and it would still be corroborated by Paul and Neil. Like I say, it was foolproof and watertight!

Why would Cross want to chance such a thing, Fish? He wanted to get & stay out of trouble, didn’t he? Surely not get into it now that he was this close to having gotten past Mizen? That’s why you say he chose this manner of getting out of the situation to begin with, isn’t it? Furthermore, I don’t think Cross even needed this lie to get past Mizen. Just telling there’s a woman in Buck’s Row who was either dead or drunk according to Cross and dead according to Paul, just as he claimed they did, would have done the trick.

We can rule out the "seen" I think, but the "heard" is of interest. And it all boils down to how loudly the men spoke. And we can safely assume that if Lechmere did not want Paul to hear the scam he served Mizen, he would not speak loudly. We may perhaps also assume that conversations held at 3.45 in the morning were not very loud ones, perhaps explaining, taken together with the fact that there was a building between Neil and Mizen/Paul/Lechmere, why Neil missed out on a low-key conversation. He said nothing about hearing the knocks Mizen delivered on the doors either, mind you!
Lechmere, though, may have heard Neils police boots in the distance. Or he may have kept track of the timings. Or he may have chanced. Whichever way, he got it all together.

Both the ‘seen’ and ‘heard’ are interesting. I believe that if Neil saw 2 men in Baker’s Row or heard their footsteps, it’s seems odd indeed that he didn’t mention this when he stumbled upon a dead and mutilated women not too far from where he heard of saw them, while we know he heard Thain from some 130 yards and he did mention seeing other people.

It´s another possibility, yes. And, just like you say, perhaps the likelier one. And if we have Lechmere and Paul taking a right into Baker´s Row seconds before Neil took HIS right into Buck´s ditto, then we still have no more than perhaps 90-100 yards inbetween them, enabling Lechmere to hear Neils steps.

Apart from it being quite a coincidence that the 2 men would be just around the corner when Neil turned into Buck’s Row from Thomas Street, I doubt that the footsteps Neil made in that rather broad part of Buck’s Row would be audible around the corner, beyond their own footsteps.

All the best,
Frank