The Mizen scam

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

There WERE two thoroughfares to Broad Street, out of which Old Montague Street was the slightly quicker one. We KNOW he used Hanbury Street, and the assumption that he may have preferred the quickest route at other occasions is a very logical one

But we know he didn't use the shorter one on the night of the murder, so the far more logical explanation is that there must have been a good reason for that, and I can think of some very good ones. The first is that Old Montague Street had a particularly bad reputation in the district and was often avoided. The second is that the route in question necessitated the use of several smaller alleyways that weren't as suitable as the east-west streets that were Hanbury and Brushfield. The third, and perhaps most obvious explanation is that he stuck to what he knew, and not perhaps having the benefit of handy maps lying around, never bothered to investigate any alternatives.

It also applies that as Lechmere spoke to Mizen, the PC would have been aware that three weeks earlier, a gruesome murder had taken place in George Yard. That may well have affected Lechmere´s choice of route as he left Mizen, if he did not want the PC to put two and two together. Likewise, if he wanted to dominate Paul and find out exactly who and what his fellow carman was and how much he had seen in Buck´s Row, then Hanbury street, alongside Paul, was the better choice on THAT morning.

I'm afraid that makes very little sense to me.

So he avoids walking past George Yard because he has already committed a murder there three weeks earlier and is worried about someone making the connection, but chooses to walk past Hanbury Street instead, where he commits a murder one week later? Just how badly did this man want to defeat the whole purpose of NOT walking past his own crime scenes? It was the Hanbury Street route that he became associated with as far as police, press and public were concerned and that was where the next murder was committed. Yet you contend he was more concerned about a complete non-connection with George Yard.

I would have thought that access to the murder spots INCREASED the possibility of guilt, not decrease it.

But many thousands of people had "access" to the murder spots, and the vast majority of them were arguably better placed to "access" them because they weren't due at work before the murders were committed, as Cross unquestionably was.

And Paul probably would have done just that. Which is why I think that he never heard it. From the inquest reports we know that Mizen says that "Cross" was the guy who spoke to him, and in the Star, Mizen says that there was another man in company with "Cross", a man that proceeded up Hanbury Street

There would have to be something seriously incompetent about PC Mizen if he allowed Cross to speak to him in an undertone without so much as a murmour of corroboration from the other man. It is also clear from the inquest that Paul left Cross "soon after" the exchange with Mizen, not before. I would suggest that the chances of Cross making false and easily detectable claims to Mizen without Paul being aware of it were very slim indeed.

Well, what would have prevented it initially was that Neil sent Mizen for the ambulance, pronto. Please observe that Mizen would not have been amazed by seeing Neil in place - for that tallied exactly with what Lechmere had told him.

Yes, but it only stands to reason that the subject of the two carmen was a logical and sensible one for Mizen to bring up. "Did you check out those two blokes?" "Which two blokes?" It didn't have to be the first point of communication between the two, but it was a conversation that was almost guaranteed to crop up at some point, and was certainly not "surplus information". Neil may well have first seen Mizen in Baker's Row, but that certainly wouldn't have prevented him from observing that the latter was already making his was to Buck's Row. I really doubt that any misapprehension as to how Mizen was first alerted to news of the crime should have persisted for very long. People do talk.

The police were at that stage stuck with a scenario in which two unidentified carmen, probably honest, had stated that they had seen a PC with Nichols in Buck´s Row

They weren't stuck with any such scenario. Cross denied having ever seen such a PC. The only scenario they were "stuck" with was a probable realisation that Mizen had become a little hazy in recollecting the circumstance of his meeting with the carmen, and that really isn't that "sticky".

All the best,
Ben

[moonbegger]

Moonbegger:

"The Big difference with the other murders, is that he didn't hang around to find out if someone was watching ,due to a sleepless night or curious to see what was going on beneath their window."

What makes you think he "hung around" in Buck´s Row? In Hanbury Street, Mitre Square and Miller´s Court, he left after having extracted organs from his victims. Arguably, after having done that, he had no reason to "hang around". In Buck´s Row, he had not gotten that far as Paul came upon him. How does that make him "hanging around"? And in Berner Street, if it was him, he probably fled when being interrupted. But how could he stay? After Buck´s Row, he had sort of used up the kind of scheme he employed there. If it was Diemschitz (I don´t think it was, but for the sake of the argument...) that disturbed him, he could not really stop and use Diemschitz as a way out, could he? "Hi, it´s me, Cross, again. Guess what happened? I found ANOTHER tarpaulin/woman lying dead..." That really would not work at that stage, would it? Buck´s Row effectively closed that door behind him.

"Yes , until he stepped out of the shadows into the centre of the road .. and doubled up as part of the discovery team .."

What do you suggest happened then? Was a lamp suddenly lit over the middle of the street? Did the Sun rise for a second or two? It was as dark there as by the gates, Moonbegger. The one and only lamp that shone over the narrow part of Buck´sw Row leading from Brady Street down to the school building, was positioned all the way up the Brady Street intersection.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman ,

Firstly , i love this quote ..

"that Old Montague Street had a particularly bad reputation in the district as was this often avoided. The second is that the route in question necessitated the use of several smaller alleyways that weren't as suitable as the crow-flies east-west streets of Hanbury Street and Brushfield Street"

That there was indeed a street too mean , for Jack the Ripper to walk down .. you gotta love that

"What do you suggest happened then? Was a lamp suddenly lit over the middle of the street? Did the Sun rise for a second or two? It was as dark there as by the gates, Moonbegger. The one and only lamp that shone over the narrow part of Buck´sw Row leading from Brady Street down to the school building, was positioned all the way up the Brady Street intersection.

I dont think , if Purkiss , or whoever would have had too see his face .. the mere fact that he stepped out into the middle of the road .. and "Hung" about waiting on the arrival of Paul ( which he did according to your chain of events ) Would have been enough for people to put 2+2 together .. i don't think its quite rocket science !

And as far as his name goes .. i think it was Dave or bridewell who posed the question .. What if he was straight up with the police and asked ..
" i am known by two names , which shall i make out my statement under "
to which point , they would have known about his other name , and had no reason to mention it again . I am of course assuming thats what Dave or Bridewell meant .

cheers

moonbegger .

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Apparently, after their encounter with PC Mizen, Cross and Paul walked together along Hanbury Street, finally parting company by the junction with Commercial Street.

The Times, 4th September 1888—

[Coroner]: "Did the other man tell you who he was?”

[Cross]: “No, sir, he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself.”

"The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury Street and turned into Corbett’s Court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness."

It's a half-mile [5-6 mins] walk to Corbett’s Court from where PC Mizen was standing. I have always found it hard to believe that during this time the two men [both carmen] did not discuss their experience and also learn each other's name.

It also seems odd to me that, if Cross and Paul followed a fairly regular work schedule [same route and approximate time every morning], the two men had never before encountered each other.

Regards,

Simon

[Bridewell]

We can't know that the police never found out Cross's real name but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that they did.
All the evidence we have suggests that they did not.

Hi Lechmere,

Thanks for that. I don't have a problem with your thinking on this, only with Fisherman's claim that we know the police never found out his real name. As you've pointed out, we can't know anything of the sort. We can only surmise.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Moonbeggar
The police reports routinely give alternative names or aliases where known.
If Cross offered alternatives it is reasonable to assume both would have been recorded as they were in other instances.
There is no realistic alternative but that Cross deliberately chose to call himself Cross - the only credible motive was to distance himself from the incident. Remember he gave his name to the police at a police station almost certainly on the Sunday evening.
One rather obvious reason for giving a false name was that he did the crime.

And it was a false name. He was very punctilious about form filling and registering himself. To an anal and almost control freakish extent. Alway - always - as Lechmere.

Ben
Your theory about Cross/Lechmere avoiding the notoriously rough Old Montague Street has again provoked a smile - but I think it is time to deposit it in the trash can where it belongs.

Bucks Row was also notoriously dangerous. Did Cross/Lechmere avoid it? I think not.
Do you think that Hanbury Street was comparatively safe? It was one street away from Old Montague Street.
The Old Montague Street route is 5 minutes quicker for Cross /Lechmere than the Hanbury Street route. Why would a carman, whose job relies on him knowing the quickest route from A to B, deliberately take a longer route?
Why would Cross/Lechmere avoid alley ways? They are short cuts. They are routes people take when they want to get somewhere as quickly as possible.

If Cross/Lechmere had committed the Tabram murder a few weeks before then it is reasonable to assume he would avoid walking in that direction IMMEDIATELY on leaving Mizen's company. The fact that he did avoid walking in that direction - the most direct route to his workplace when he was supposedly late for work and was supposedly keen to avoid getting into long winded discussions with Mizen to avoid having his pay docked (even though he then put himself in the frame to attend the inquest and have a whole day off work) - is one small extra piece of evidence against Cross/Lechmere.

By the time he carried out the Chapman murder he had cleared himself. The benefit of incriminating Paul - who was not in the clear - would have far outweighed any prospect of Cross/Lechmere being linked into the Chapman murder.
We can conclude from the known facts that Cross/Lechmere's culpability was not hightened by the coincidence of the Chapman murder occuring on Hanbury Street - adjacent to where he had walked on the morning of 31st August.
We can also conclude from the known facts that Paul's culpability was raised - although he was cleared.
Accordingly we can conclude that if Cross/Lechmere did it, his strategem worked. It deflected attention from himself.

Mizen doesn't come out of this - whatever way you look at it - as the most competent Rozer to ever pace the streets of London.
However it is quite easy to see how Cross/Lechmere could have said the line about him being wanted by another copper in Bucks Row, and for Paul not to be aware of this.
It is clear from Paul's two newspaper interviews that he was anti Police. It seems from Mizen's testimony that Paul was very much second fiddle. It is easy to picture a scene where Paul deliberalty hung back and allowed the more dominant Cross/Lechmere to do the talking.
Further, however logical and sensible it might seem to you that Mizen would have told Neil about the carmen, it is fairly certain that the presence of the two carmen at the crime scene was not appreciated immediately. Read the first police reports. This should tell you that no such conversation took place between Neil and Mizen - for whatever reason.
Also the fact that Mizen and Neil were from different police divisions will have prevented any canteen chat about what had transpired.

Jon
From the police reports we have a very good idea about who they were actively looking at prior to the Double Event - Pizer, Iscenschmidt, Paul, the Three Butchers of Winthrop Street all get mentioned. Cross/Lechmere does not.
Dew in his interesting memoirs remembers many of the various witnesses. He remembers young Hutchinson well enough. He remembers a hue and cry to find Paul. He can't even remember Cross's name!
It is clear that Cross passed through the case unnoticed and ignored - just as the glaring inconsistencies in his testimony that have been tweaked out here have been missed by generations of Ripperologists!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lechmere,

Argue the known testimony. It's all we have.

Supposition is for the birds.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

alias

Hello Lechmere.

"One rather obvious reason for giving a false name was that he did the crime."

Indeed. Another is that he wished to be involved no more than minimally. A common wish for those who witness some portion of a crime.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Yes Lyn and if he didn't do it and so had nothing to fear the best course of action to avoid involvement would be to not come forward at all.
And after coming forward and being named as a witness at the inquest why did he turn up in his work clothes even though he must have known he wouldn't be able to atend work? We know that Paul knew he wouldn't be able to go to work when he attended the inquest.

The name alone is merely the catalyst for further investigation which opens up a can of worms so far as Cross/Lechmere is concerened.

Read how he approached Paul in Bucks Row - with Paul taking fear and moving off the pavement to avoid him and as Paul passed Cross tapped him on hois shoulder - it must have been his right shoulder. They did some sort of strange pirouette in the street with Cross walking across Paul's front as Paul tried to dodge around him.
Is that the normal behaviour of someone who has just spotted a woman lying in the street?

We have someone who was found over a ripper victim by someone else. The only time this happened. We have this person giving a false name. We have this person acting strangely and saying all sorts of questionable things. We have a window of opportunity in his stated time of departure from his house to the time he was found by the corpse.
We have the fact that all the murders happened on his routes to work or near his mother's house (and then at the weekend).
We have his strange personal background and the fact that the murders started just after he moved into the killing zone.
How much more do you want?
A signed confession?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"we know he didn't use the shorter one on the night of the murder, so the far more logical explanation is that there must have been a good reason for that"

Not at all, Ben. Why on earth must there have been any "good reason" for the choice he made?
At work, I try to add some healthy exercise by taking a walk each lunch. I have three different walks to choose from, all equally long. If I choose, say, number two on a Tuesday - why must I have a "good reason" for that choice? The only reason I need is change - I perhaps walked number three the day before, and number one the day before that.
That, Ben, is all it takes to make the choice. No better reason than that.

I understand that you are trying to invert things here, somehow trying to point to a suggestion that it would have taken a helluva lot for him to choose Old Montague Street and that he would have avoided it in the longest, but that is simply nonsense.
Anyhow, I have actually provided you with TWO "good" reasons for choosing Hanbury Street on the murder morning:
1. He may have avoided to show Mizen that he used Old Montague Street, since the previous murder had taken place there a mere three weeks before the Nichols slaying. That would be a very good reason to use Hanbury Streeet instead!
2. Paul used Hanbury Street, and if he either wanted to read up more on him or simply wanted company on his morning walk, then Hanbury Street would also be the bettr choice. There, one more really "good" reason for that particular choice.

But on the next day, he may have done it the way I do, and thus he may have chosen Old Montague Street for a change.

"So he avoids walking past George Yard because he has already committed a murder there three weeks earlier and is worried about someone making the connection, but chooses to walk past Hanbury Street instead, where he commits a murder one week later? "

Yes, Ben. Mizen COULD connect him to the George Yard slaying, but he would in all probability not say "Stop there! Are you not the man who will kill on Hanbury Street next week?"

"But many thousands of people had "access" to the murder spots, and the vast majority of them were arguably better placed to "access" them because they weren't due at work before the murders were committed, as Cross unquestionably was."

But that was not what we discussed. We discussed whether a natural connection to the murder spots increased or decreased the chance of killing there.

"There would have to be something seriously incompetent about PC Mizen if he allowed Cross to speak to him in an undertone without so much as a murmour of corroboration from the other man. It is also clear from the inquest that Paul left Cross "soon after" the exchange with Mizen, not before. I would suggest that the chances of Cross making false and easily detectable claims to Mizen without Paul being aware of it were very slim indeed."

Not at all. Some papers (and the inquest reports are paper reports too) tell us that Mizen stated that the other man, the one in company with Cross, went up Hanbury Street. It can VERY easily be that Lechmere said "you walk on ahead and I´ll catch up with you!" Paul WAS pressed for time. And why on earth would Mizen call Paul back to have it corroborated? If Lechmere had lied, then so could Paul. Mizen would be none the wiser before he reached Buck´s Row anyway.

"it only stands to reason that the subject of the two carmen was a logical and sensible one for Mizen to bring up. "Did you check out those two blokes?" "Which two blokes?" "

Not at all. Again. Why would Mizen ask Neil if he had checked the men out? He was certain that Neil had sent them, and he was equally certain that Neil had taken care of what business needed to be taken care of. Asking Neil if he had done his job would actually be to question his competence. So no, Ben.

"It didn't have to be the first point of communication between the two, but it was a conversation that was almost guaranteed to crop up at some point"

Not between the two PC:s no, for reasons stated above. We can also see that Neil is asked whether he had been approached by two men, and denies this fervently. Why would he not say to the papers that Mizen had spoken of the two men to him, if this was the case, instead of being perplexed by the question? It only adds up one way, I´m afraid. And it´s not your way.

"I really doubt that any misapprehension as to how Mizen was first alerted to news of the crime should have persisted for very long. People do talk."

And people do think, Ben. Here´s how I think:

Neil saw Mizen in the darkness up in the vicinity of Baker´s Row/Thomas Street, and signalled him with his light.
Mizen went to Buck´s Row on Lechmere´s bid.
When Mizen arrived, he was sure that Neil was the man that had asked for assistance, and that he had done the proper thing to anser the request.
Neil was equally sure that Mizen had seen his lamp and come to aid.

Now, what you want is for Neil to say: "I see you saw my lamp and decided to answer my call. Anybody sent you here?"

or for Mizen to say

"Well, here I am, thanks to the two carmen you sent to fetch me".

But why would they? What Neil said was "here´s a woman with her throat cut, quickly mate, get an ambulance", and then that conversation was over. That is why he was astounded by the suggestion that two men had alerted him to the spot.

"They weren't stuck with any such scenario. Cross denied having ever seen such a PC. "

You know this because Lechmere said so at the inquest - a man that I want for the murders and a very probable liar in my eyes. But on the murder night he did NOT deny this - he in fact proposed it, as we know from the evidence given by Mizen, evidence that fits in one context only - Lechmere lied to pass him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy:

"It also seems odd to me that, if Cross and Paul followed a fairly regular work schedule [same route and approximate time every morning], the two men had never before encountered each other."

Lechmere had stayed in Doveton Street for ten weeks or so at that stage. Paul was behind time, perhaps leaving at another time than Lechmere ordinarily did. And when you walk in the same direction, you don´t meet. That happens to those who walk in opposite directions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Colin:

"I don't have a problem with your thinking on this, only with Fisherman's claim that we know the police never found out his real name."

I did not say that they never did, Colin, to be fair. At least I never meant it that way. But I do say that everything we´ve got points in the opposite direction. In all probability, the police did not know and did not find out.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

And then there's . . .

Hello Lechmere. Thanks.

" . . . the best course of action to avoid involvement would be to not come forward at all."

Well, he was already involved when he met Paul. Of course, he stepped that up when he went to the station.

"And after coming forward and being named as a witness at the inquest why did he turn up in his work clothes even though he must have known he wouldn't be able to attend work?"

1. Quite possible he had no dress clothes. (I don't own a suit--of which I'm aware.)

2. Possible he thought it would be over quickly.

"We know that Paul knew he wouldn't be able to go to work when he attended the inquest."

Perhaps he was smarter than Cross?

"The name alone is merely the catalyst for further investigation which opens up a can of worms so far as Cross/Lechmere is concerned."

Very well. I'm all for investigation--and that includes Long/Durrell; Holland/Oram.

"Read how he approached Paul in Bucks Row - with Paul taking fear and moving off the pavement to avoid him and as Paul passed Cross tapped him on his shoulder - it must have been his right shoulder. They did some sort of strange pirouette in the street with Cross walking across Paul's front as Paul tried to dodge around him.
Is that the normal behaviour of someone who has just spotted a woman lying in the street?"

I did not read about fear. Are you sure you are not projecting?

But here is a serious question. If he heard Paul approaching AND had decided to brave it out rather than fling his knife into the stable yard and flee, why would he be spooked by Paul? You'll forgive me, but that makes NO sense whatsoever.

"We have someone who was found over a ripper victim . . . " (Ripper? Ugh!) " . . . by someone else. The only time this happened. We have this person giving a false name. We have this person acting strangely . . . "

Strange? Sorry, don't see it.

" . . . and saying all sorts of questionable things. We have a window of opportunity in his stated time of departure from his house to the time he was found by the corpse."

Along with scores of others.

"We have the fact that all the murders happened on his routes to work or near his mother's house (and then at the weekend)."

POSSIBLE routes to work.

"We have his strange personal background . . . "

What is strange about it?

" . . . and the fact that the murders started just after he moved into the killing zone."

You mean EAST of the killing zone?

"How much more do you want?"

Well, a single shred of evidence would be lovely. I prefer knives and reports of strangulation.

"A signed confession?"

Nae, laddie. Too many confessions already.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Lynn:

"why would he be spooked by Paul?"

I know you addressed this to Lechmere, but I am curious; surely you have gotten this wrong - it was PAUL that was spooked by Lechmere, not the other way around.

The best, Lynn!
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

ah!

Hello Christer. Thanks. That makes a good bit more sense.

But I fail to understand how Paul's being spooked enhances Cross' candidacy? If I saw some bloke near a dead body at 3.45 AM, I might be spooked as well.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

I am just asking whether it makes a viable thing to posit that people went to the police and asked then under which name the police wanted them to testify?

"Hello sergeant...dunno if you remember me, I'm Tom Cross's son...yes that's right he retired a few years back...oh he's fine...

I came in because I was with that bloke Paul, when the murdered woman was found in Bucks Row, and thought I ought to come in and fill out the old paperwork...oh no...no I didn't hang around after I'd spoken to the beat man 'cos I was already getting late for work, but I take it now's ok?

Righto...now just one thing...the name I usually use is Lechmere...what? Oh no it's not a false name...it was me real fathers name you see, so which should I put down? Oh well if you all remember me as Cross I'll put that down, so long as it don't matter..."

All supposition of course but it was the way my mind was working...

Dave