The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[John G]

One interesting thing about what Lechmere said is how it mirrors what Paul said in his Lloyds Weekly interview. And that may have helped with the impression you are getting.

Hi Christer,

Could I trouble you for the Lloyds Weekly reference? Do you think the similarities might suggest that Paul and Cross discussed the case prior to the inquest?

[John G]

You might as well add that at one time he thought she was a tarpaulin!

There is nothing contradictory with the rest of his evidence with him saying he had no idea there were any serious injuries. Neither he nor Paul could see any serious injuries in the dark.

Yes, in the confusing situation in which he found himself the thought crossed his mind that Nichols had been outraged and gone off in a swoon. So what? A person could have had twenty different thoughts in that situation, even contradictory ones.

Which is exactly my point, David. If he was in such a confused state of mind how on earth could be be certain as to what he may or may not have said to PC Mizen?

[Fisherman]

But, as I've noted before, surely the real difficulty is that Cross' evidence is all over the place in respect of what he thought had happened to Nichols. Thus, he informs the inquest that he variously believed the victim to be "dead", "drunk", "outraged", "gone off in a swoon", and, moreover, that he had no idea that "there were any serious injuries."

Given these somewhat contradictory accounts, can we have any confidence about what he might have told PC Mizen?

One interesting thing about what Lechmere said is how it mirrors what Paul said in his Lloyds Weekly interview. And that may have helped with the impression you are getting.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: I can only repeat that the evidence taken as a whole is that Mizen was told that that a woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row.

By that, you mean that we should accept everything everybody said as the truth, David. The problem is that it does not work. There is every chance that the much more economic message witnessed about by Mizen was all that was said.
I would like to point to how the suggested answer on behalf of Mizen, "Alright", fits rather badly with him just haing been told that there was seemingly a dead woman in Bucks Row, than with the sparse information that there was a woman lying on the broad of her back there, attended to by another PC who had requested his assistance.
"Alright" is a very logical answer to that one, just as it makes sense to finish a knocking-up errand in that position.

Any which way, it is NOT a fact that Mizen was told about death or drunkenness.

Paul's evidence was that he thought the woman was dead so it makes perfect sense that this is what Mizen was told.

And if Lechmere was the killer, it makes perfect sense that Mizen was NOT told. Perfect sense can be many things.

At the same time there was some impression of her still breathing so it also makes sense that her being drunk was also a possibility.

And it also makes sense that Paul never spoke to Mizen if Lechmere was the killer, and Mizens testimony seems to confirm that he never heard anything at all from Paul.

Once again, sense can be many things, depending on the angle we look at it from. What we must not do is to shut down one angle . tnat would make no sense at all.

But, really, Fisherman, the actual issue of the discussion that I have been having with Harry is that Mizen was not told that a woman was dying. It simply doesn't matter exactly what he WAS told because, whatever it was, it seems pretty clear that there was no emergency to which he needed to respond by leaving his beat.

It matters a whole lot, I´m afraid. Perhaps not to the isolated question about the degree of emergency, but very much so to the overall question of what was said and why. If Mizen was told that the woman was dead, that would obviously be a reason for the PC to be a lot more alert, and quite possibly to detain the men and take them to Bucks Row. The less urgent the errand seemed and the more it seemed it was already taken care of by another policeman, the less reason Mizen would have seen to detain the men.
The importance of these matters is therefore monumental, and treating it as a fact that Mizen was spoken to by both carmen and told that the woman was dead or drunk does not help in the least. It may instead lead astray totally.

And THAT is why I think that Mizen either was told by Cross or understood he was being told by Cross that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row because it explains why he left his beat.

Yes, I know that, and I can only say that it´s about time that somebody understands at the very least that matter. Taking a look at Mizens ensuing actions as Neil claimed to be the finder is equally helpful in reaching the same conclusion.
However, recognizing that Mizen worked from this angle does not come with a free ticket from me to invent "truths" about the rest of the matters involved. Sorry, but there you are, David.

[David Orsam]

But, as I've noted before, surely the real difficulty is that Cross' evidence is all over the place in respect of what he thought had happened to Nichols. Thus, he informs the inquest that he variously believed the victim to be "dead", "drunk", "outraged", "gone off in a swoon", and, moreover, that he had no idea that "there were any serious injuries."

Given these somewhat contradictory accounts, can we have any confidence about what he might have told PC Mizen?

You might as well add that at one time he thought she was a tarpaulin!

There is nothing contradictory with the rest of his evidence with him saying he had no idea there were any serious injuries. Neither he nor Paul could see any serious injuries in the dark.

Yes, in the confusing situation in which he found himself the thought crossed his mind that Nichols had been outraged and gone off in a swoon. So what? A person could have had twenty different thoughts in that situation, even contradictory ones.

[John G]

I can only repeat that the evidence taken as a whole is that Mizen was told that that a woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row.

Paul's evidence was that he thought the woman was dead so it makes perfect sense that this is what Mizen was told. At the same time there was some impression of her still breathing so it also makes sense that her being drunk was also a possibility.

But, really, Fisherman, the actual issue of the discussion that I have been having with Harry is that Mizen was not told that a woman was dying. It simply doesn't matter exactly what he WAS told because, whatever it was, it seems pretty clear that there was no emergency to which he needed to respond by leaving his beat.

And THAT is why I think that Mizen either was told by Cross or understood he was being told by Cross that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row because it explains why he left his beat.

But, as I've noted before, surely the real difficulty is that Cross' evidence is all over the place in respect of what he thought had happened to Nichols. Thus, he informs the inquest that he variously believed the victim to be "dead", "drunk", "outraged", "gone off in a swoon", and, moreover, that he had no idea that "there were any serious injuries."

Given these somewhat contradictory accounts, can we have any confidence about what he might have told PC Mizen?

[David Orsam]

As I´ve said before, the one and only complication lies in the flat out denial of what Mizen himself said could have been the meagre truth: That he was only told that a woman was lying in the street in Bucks Row. Not a word about a potentially dead woman, not a word about a potentially drunk woman - just a woman lying flat on her back.

So what David claims as some sort of truth: "So, yes, Paul told Mizen he believed the woman was dead. Cross told Mizen he believed she was dead or drunk. That's it", is just one of the possibilities suggested by the material involved, and not some sort of established fact.

What Mizen said must also be taken into account. Regardless of how a woman lying flat on her back MAY be dead and MAY be drunk, Mizens wording does not mean that he must have been told anything at all about either death or drunkenness. It must be weighed in that the PC actually points out that the carman said nothing at all about any murder.

Since this seems to be totally discarded for no reason at all, I thought I´d reiterate it.

I can only repeat that the evidence taken as a whole is that Mizen was told that that a woman was dead or drunk in Bucks Row.

Paul's evidence was that he thought the woman was dead so it makes perfect sense that this is what Mizen was told. At the same time there was some impression of her still breathing so it also makes sense that her being drunk was also a possibility.

But, really, Fisherman, the actual issue of the discussion that I have been having with Harry is that Mizen was not told that a woman was dying. It simply doesn't matter exactly what he WAS told because, whatever it was, it seems pretty clear that there was no emergency to which he needed to respond by leaving his beat.

And THAT is why I think that Mizen either was told by Cross or understood he was being told by Cross that he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row because it explains why he left his beat.

[Fisherman]

As I´ve said before, the one and only complication lies in the flat out denial of what Mizen himself said could have been the meagre truth: That he was only told that a woman was lying in the street in Bucks Row. Not a word about a potentially dead woman, not a word about a potentially drunk woman - just a woman lying flat on her back.

So what David claims as some sort of truth: "So, yes, Paul told Mizen he believed the woman was dead. Cross told Mizen he believed she was dead or drunk. That's it", is just one of the possibilities suggested by the material involved, and not some sort of established fact.

What Mizen said must also be taken into account. Regardless of how a woman lying flat on her back MAY be dead and MAY be drunk, Mizens wording does not mean that he must have been told anything at all about either death or drunkenness. It must be weighed in that the PC actually points out that the carman said nothing at all about any murder.

Since this seems to be totally discarded for no reason at all, I thought I´d reiterate it.

[Patrick S]

I'm afraid I don't understand the question Patrick.

Harry referred to a woman lying "dead or dying". I said that Mizen wasn't told the woman was "dead or dying". He was told she was "dead or drunk". So, if she wasn't dead she was drunk.

What's complicated about that?

Nothing at all.

[David Orsam]

So, we agree? Because You wrote this:

Harry: A woman lying dead or dying would have every relevance for a police officer.

Orsam: Possibly but Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering. No-one suggested to him that she was dying.

So, what are you saying exactly? Do you think Mizen was told she was dead, by Cross or by Paul, or do you not? Or was this simply sarcasm directed at Christer's theory?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question Patrick.

Harry referred to a woman lying "dead or dying". I said that Mizen wasn't told the woman was "dead or dying". He was told she was "dead or drunk". So, if she wasn't dead she was drunk.

What's complicated about that?

[Patrick S]

I don't understand why you need to refer to a newspaper article for what was said to Mizen (especially one which claims that Paul left Cross with the body and told him he would send the first policeman he saw).

When demonstrating how untenable the Lechmere the Ripper theory is to the naïve, the gullible, the misinformed, and to Christer himself, I try and avoid using, Lechmere himself as a source of information refuting the theory that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper.

Surely the sworn evidence of Cross at the inquest is all we need:

"Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead."

And then Christer says, "The man was Jack the Ripper. He was lying."

So, yes, Paul told Mizen he believed the woman was dead. Cross told Mizen he believed she was dead or drunk. That's it.

So, we agree? Because You wrote this:

Harry: A woman lying dead or dying would have every relevance for a police officer.

Orsam: Possibly but Mizen's information was that if the woman was not dead she was drunk and that is the only fact you should be considering. No-one suggested to him that she was dying.

So, what are you saying exactly? Do you think Mizen was told she was dead, by Cross or by Paul, or do you not? Or was this simply sarcasm directed at Christer's theory?

[David Orsam]

Robert Paul claimed that he did more than suggest to Mizen that Nichols was dying. He told Lloyd's that he the told Mizen that Nichols was dead.

"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."

So, either Paul was lying or he wasn't. If he was lying, why did he do so?

I don't understand why you need to refer to a newspaper article for what was said to Mizen (especially one which claims that Paul left Cross with the body and told him he would send the first policeman he saw).

Surely the sworn evidence of Cross at the inquest is all we need:

"Witness also said he believed she was dead or drunk, while the other man stated he believed her to be dead."

So, yes, Paul told Mizen he believed the woman was dead. Cross told Mizen he believed she was dead or drunk. That's it.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

Here's an interesting story.

East London Observer, 1st September 1888—

"It seems that on Friday morning Police-constable Neale [sic], 97J, was on his beat at about half-past four, in the neighbourhood of Buck's Row. It was then just after half-past four, and, in the early light of day he discovered lying on the pavement just outside the high brick wall which surrounds the Essex Wharf, the form of a woman. She was lying on her back, with hands that were tightly clenched, and presenting altogether the appearance of one who had died in the greatest agony. She was wearing a little black straw bonnet, battered almost out of recognition, and placed at the back of her head. Around her was a cloak - a threadbare garment that had once been red, but was now a dull, dirty colour. It was open in front, and the black bodice of her dress was thrown slightly open, revealing a horrible gash more than an inch in diameter, extending from one ear to the other, and completely severing the windpipe, which protruded from the deep wound.

"Constable Neale at once called for assistance, and with the help of some scavengers who were cleaning the roads at the time, managed to carry the body to the mortuary, which is situated in the Pavilion Yard close by. Mr. Edmunds, the keeper of the mortuary, was in attendance, and assisted by the officer and the scavengers, undressed the poor creature and placed her in one of the black coffins lying about the mortuary."

Pretty clear from the full article that the journalist's source was Mr Edmunds of the Whitechapel Mortuary who had no first-hand knowledge of what had happened in Bucks Row earlier that morning so I'm not convinced it's interesting, let alone of any relevance to this thread.

[David Orsam]

If I disparage newspaper reports of proceedings,then I am in good company.They are secondry to official reports,and it's been shown that they sometimes contained errors,but I do not think I have ever said,we should ignore them completely.

Disparage them if you wish - even though you rely on them yourself - but not on the basis of them being hearsay, which is pretty meaningless.

[David Orsam]

There w as no such thing as an official transcript of the inquest ,Harry.
That's what you wrote David.
There was,but it is not known what happened to it.I do read and digest.
It was a coroners court,the inquest of Nichols was a procedure through the court.A transcript of those proceedings would be made.

Harry, there was no transcript made of the inquest hearing. Such a document would have been a physical impossibility bearing in mind that there was no shorthand writer, stenographer or court reporter in the courtroom at the time and, obviously, no recording was made of the hearing. So who could possibly have prepared a transcript? Whatever you think you have read, no transcript was ever made of any inquest proceedings in 1888. That's it. Time to accept it.