Was Lech known as Cross at Pickfords??

[DVV]

Oh yes, and my questions - how about them? They are still waiting for an answer.
Not to be, eh?
Fisherman

Most refreshing.... Haven't I said that your evidence is...evidence ? But is it a solid one ? That's a question you should ask yourself as well, Fish. It seems to me that your evidence is contradicted by quite a long list of shuddas, as you put it.
But feel free to ignore that shuddas, if you think it makes your scenario more reliable.
Another way would be to weight things calmly, and this, I believe, could well add value to your theory. Or not.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Fish, if I'm correct, "These officers" (ie : "that had seen no man...") refers to Mizen and Thain."

That is one thing that will prove very hard to question, yes.

"And they can be counted among people "who might assist giving a clue" - giving a clue before Sunday, that means."

No, not really. The ones the police wanted to assist with clues were people representing the public. Mizen and Thain had already said what they had to say - and that was that neither man had seen any man leave the spot to attract attention. The deduction can only be one: Jonas Mizen was asked if he had seen anybody leave Buckīs Row, and chose to respond in the negative.

We donīt know at what exact stage the question was put to Thain and Mizen, but logic dictates that it happened early on Friday.

"First question they (Enright and Godley, and Neil as well) would have asked Mizen : why did you go to Buck's Row ?"

NO!!! Leave the "shudda"īs out, David! Neil very clearly stated that he wawed Mizen down with his lamp, and Mizen would not have denied this. If he HAD denied it, it would have meant that he said A/ "No, I saw noone leave Buckīs Row", and B/ "No, I was not summoned by Neil - two carmen who arrived from Buckīs Row sent me".

Do you see how preposterous this would be? Mizen chose to ommit his knowledge of the carmen - and that meant that he would go along with Neils proposition that he was called to Brownīs Stable Yards by means of Neils Bulls eye lantern.

"What Mizen has done, if you and Lechmere are correct on this (which is possible, I agree, according to your evidence), is a much more serious offence than Chandler's."

It is a serious offence, yes. But just as you note, it is nothing we have dreamt up. Instead we have it black on white. This was exactly what Mizen did. And not only did he start out like that, he also kept silent about it throughout, since otherwise, we would not have Neil and the collected Met believing on Sunday noon that the good PC HAD been the first person to find the body.

"I sense that too many things happen, in your scenario, between the publication of the Lloyd's (Sunday afternoon) and the Daily News interview (Sunday evening..."

Ah. Then this is a wuddnītave, shuddnītave and cuddnītave. How refreshing! Be a bit more specific - what is it you canīt accept? Maybe I can help out, who knows?

Oh yes, and my questions - how about them? They are still waiting for an answer.

Not to be, eh?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Daily News of Monday 3rd September


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 lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue.

Fish, if I'm correct, "These officers" (ie : "that had seen no man...") refers to Mizen and Thain. And they can be counted among people "who might assist giving a clue" - giving a clue before Sunday, that means.

First question they (Enright and Godley, and Neil as well) would have asked Mizen : why did you go to Buck's Row ?

Ok, it's another "shudda...etc", but rather an obvious one, and when there are too many "shudda", one has the right to raise an eyebrow, I believe. Perhaps I should list the "shudda", btw.

We have the case of Chandler, demoted to Sergeant for being drunk on duty.
What Mizen has done, if you and Lechmere are correct on this (which is possible, I agree, according to your evidence), is a much more serious offence than Chandler's. He "shudda" been fired out, but what happened to him ? I've already pointed out that he was even not questioned on this by Baxter.

I sense that too many things happen, in your scenario, between the publication of the Lloyd's (Sunday afternoon) and the Daily News interview (Sunday evening, entre la poire et le fromage).

[Fisherman]

David:

"why not asking Mizen straightforwardly : "did you report to the investigators that you had talked with two carmen that morning ?""

Wudda - cudda - shudda, David. Again.

Plus the investigators already knew he did not - at least not from the outset. And apparently not after that either, since Neil remained the sole finder of Nichols in the eyes of the police until very late in the process.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"If so, it seems to me that both Mizen and the Lloyd's reporter have commited a serious offence."

As you now know, Mizen DID actively deny having seen the carmen. And if you need the answer to why a journalist would have put the lid on instead of leaking things to the police and risking that his own paper was the last to report a scoop, then I think that question answers itself.

Once again, you think that even if the evidence flies in the face of such a thing, you prefer to believe that everybody will always go by the book. I mean, knowing what Mizen said about any men leaving Buckīs Row (No guv, no such men came to my attention!), how can you keep pushing the view that he would never do what we know he did?

Evidence always trumphs preconceived notions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"Sometimes, you seem to live in your own world and it doesn't help for a fruitful discussion."

In my own world? Come on, David ...!

"Would you forgive me if I had no time yesterday evening to address your infuriated posts ?"

They were anything but infuriated. They were calm and clear. Which makes it so more odd that you wrote that my questions in post 233 were "not questions" but a mess.

Here they are again:

Why would the police severely question Neil about his role? He must have said exactly what happened - that he found Nichols lying on the pavement, neck cut. Why would his colleagues not simply accept this?

Why would anybody suspect that Mizen would have been the PC Paul spoke of, given that Paul stated that he found his PC at the end of Buckīs Row?

Why would it not all have been cleared up on Sunday afternoon, if Lechmere had spoken to the police earlier? Why was it that the Daily News claimed that Neil fervently denied having spoken to two men? Why had HE and not Mizen been approached in the matter?

Why would it not all have been cleared up on Sundayt afternoon if Mizen had spoken to his superiors about the two carmen on Friday or Saturday?

Why did the police say that the two PC:s who had covered the entrances to Buckīs Row had said that they had not seen any strange men leaving the street if this was not so? Did the police lie about this? Had Mizen spilled the beans, whereas the police had kept it under wraps? If so, why?

What is it you cannot understand about these questions? Why are they a mess? They seem very clear and unambigous to me. But maybe thatīs because I "live in my own world", perhaps...?

Really, David. If you realize that you cannot produce an answer to a question without giving away that you are wrong, then just say so. Donīt go around painting ME out as living in my own world if the shortcomings are all on your side. Like I said, it shows.

Now, please give these questions a try, David. Either present useful answers to them or explain to me what it is you canīt understand about them, and I will do my utmost to clear things up. Promise!

"Let's take our time. It's an interesting topic and my aim isn't to be "right" by all means."

Mine is. Factually right, in accordance with the evidence, representing the records as fairly as possible. I always aim to be as correct as possible.
But I see what you mean, David, and I will be very pleased if you come good on it.

"For the time being, here is my problem : would Mizen have concealed his encounter with the carmen until Sunday evening ? Is it conceivable ? Have we got solid evidence that he did ?"

But wait, David... Here are three questions that are produced along the exact same lines as MY questions - the unanswered ones - to you.

Now you have me confused. What shall I do? Shall I say that these are not questions but an outright, incomprehensible mess? Like you do, I mean?

Of course, they are not. They are just as clear as mine, and I am having no trouble at all to see what you ask for.

Then again, would it not be prudent if YOU said the same about MY questions and answered them first?

I think I will make a compromise, and answer ONE of your questions, the last one, and then I will await YOUR answers to MY questions before expanding on things.

So, do we have solid evidence that Mizen concealed his encounter with the carmen until Sunday evening?

That is a somewhat tricky question, given your wording. For you postulate a very active manner of going about things on Mizens behalf - that he actively concealed his knowledge about the carmen.

Let me answer in this way: Just how active Mizen was in concealing things, we canīt tell - but we DO have clear evidence that the police did not know about Mizens encounter with the carmen until late on Sunday. If this in itīs turn was due to Mizens superiors not asking him the right questions, or if it depended on Mizen actively keeping things from them is a bit harder to tell.

If you want me to guess, then Iīd say that Mizen actually omitted to mention the carmen since he was very uneasy about not having taken down their names and details. We KNOW that he had been asked whether any men had left the spot (Buckīs Row" to "attract attention" to themselves, and we also know that he answered this question in the negative. And according to Thain and Mizen, no such men had been in place.

This of course nullifies your point that Mizen would not have concealed things - he did so from the outset, quite apparently. And what does that mean? Iīll tell you, David - it means that once again, we have a naysayer (and that would be you) making a very logical point (PC:s normally donīt conceal things like these from their superiors), that is chewed up by the evidence - we clearly and quickly realize when reading that evidence, that Mizen claimed than no men had left Buckīs Row to attract attention to themselves. He concealed, thus.

So there you are, David. One of your questions answered and bolstered by the evidence. My suggestion is that you now answer my questions, and then I will take care of whatīs left on your behalf. Fair enough, eh?

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

We know Baxter did not spare the police whenever he got the opportunity.
Then why not asking Mizen straightforwardly : "did you report to the investigators that you had talked with two carmen that morning ?"

[DVV]

And Paul having been interviewed as soon as Friday evening, is it possible that nothing had leaked out until Sunday ?
If so, it seems to me that both Mizen and the Lloyd's reporter have commited a serious offence.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"It was a statutory requirement imposed by the 1870 Education Act."

Aha - I did not know that, Garry, so thank you for informing me!

Anyway, it still remains that he would have payed to have all his kids baptized (and it was a swarm of them, closing in on a dozen), just as we know that he apparently had saved up enough money to open a shop in later years, and he left a tidy sum behind when he passed away.

We may also look at Robert Paul, who said he ha to pay another man five shillngs per day to do his work when he himself was at the inquest. And five shillings per day was not a very low wage. Jack London writes in "People of the abyss":
"The average weekly earnings of the hawkers and costermongers are not more than ten to twelve shillings. The average of all common labourers, outside the dockers, is less than sixteen shillings per week, while the dockers average from eight to nine shillings. These figures are taken from a royal commission report and are authentic.

Five shillings per day makes for a weekly salary of 30 shillings, so a carman apparently was not that bad off.

Plus he did not have to spend a penny, sending his kids to school. Thanks, Garry, for straightening that out!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Thank you, David! It was exactly the answer I hoped for!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish
I wasn't surprised at your method either.
Sometimes, you seem to live in your own world and it doesn't help for a fruitful discussion. Would you forgive me if I had no time yesterday evening to address your infuriated posts ? Let's take our time. It's an interesting topic and my aim isn't to be "right" by all means.

For the time being, here is my problem : would Mizen have concealed his encounter with the carmen until Sunday evening ? Is it conceivable ? Have we got solid evidence that he did ?

[Garry Wroe]

At the very least, he could take his apron off, if - as has been suggested - this relatively well-off man, who could afford to send all his kids to school, had no Sunday best to put on.

School attendance was not an indicator of wealth or social status, Fish. It was a statutory requirement imposed by the 1870 Education Act. As a consequence Cross would have had little option but to send his children to school.

[Lechmere]

Yes and it's qute fascinating how these overlooked details can be tweaked out of the existing records

[Fisherman]

Correct, Edward; it is quite clear that Neil being quizzed about this was something that preceeded the inquest. And it is nothing but fascinating how the developments can all be pieced together in such detail. Unless the papers misreported it all, it goes to show that no doubt whatsoever, Lechmere did not contact the police before sometime late on the Sunday.

Some donīt appreciate this to the full, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Re-reading the Daily News of Monday 3rd September I realise that PC Neil’s denial that he had been called to the crime scene by two passers occurred at some sort of press conference held on Sunday evening – 2nd September. The same ‘press conference’ revealed that at that time the police still thought that Polly was discovered by Neil.
The ‘press conference’ seems to have been attended by Inspector Helson and PC Neil himself. Here is the transcript as recorded in the Daily News:

Inspector Helson, at an interview yesterday evening, said that the report that blood stains were found leading from Brady street to Buck's row was not true. The place was examined by Sergeant Enright and himself on Friday morning, and neither bloodstains nor wheel marks were found to indicate that the body had been deposited where found, the murder being committed elsewhere. Both himself and Inspector Abberline, indeed, had come to the conclusion that it was committed on the spot. That conclusion was fortified by the post mortem examination made by Dr. Llewellyn. At first the small quantity of blood found on the spot suggested that the woman was murdered in a neighbouring house. Dr. Llewellyn, however, is understood to have satisfied himself that the great quantity of blood which must have followed the gashes in the abdomen flowed into the abdominal cavity, but he maintains his opinion that the first wounds were those in the throat, and they would have effectually prevented any screaming. The blood from those wounds Inspector Helson considers was held by the dress and the ulster, and it is evident, from that view of the matter, that the woman was lying on her back when her throat was cut. It is, moreover, considered unlikely that the woman could have entered a house, have been murdered, and have been removed to Buck's row within a period of an hour and a quarter. The woman who last saw the deceased alive - and whose name is Nelly Holland - was a fellow lodger with the deceased in Thrawl street, and is positive as to the time being 2.30. Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. 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 lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street. These officers had seen no man leaving the spot to attract attention, and the mystery is most complete. Nevertheless, the utmost efforts are being used, a number of plain clothes men being out making inquiries in the neighbourhood, and Sergeants Wright and Godley have interviewed many persons who might, it was thought, assist in giving a clue. The inquest is to be resumed today, but must rather hamper the action of the police, whose whole time is required to trace any information whilst the scent, if any, is still fresh. The deceased, it is understood, will be buried tomorrow.

This tells us that at the time this 'press conference' was conducted (Sunday evening, 2nd September), Helson and Neil were still in ignorance about Charles Lechmere’s role. I would suggest that the 'press conference' was conducted after the Lloyds story appeared. This clears up the mystery about how the ‘two men’ came to the police’s attention.

I had (again mistakenly!) assumed that the reference to ‘two men’ had leaked out on the Saturday following Paul’s interview on the Friday. However it is actually clearly the case that the Helson/Neil 'press conference' happened after the appearance of the Lloyds story which would have been in the late afternoon of 2nd September.
Charles Lechmere must have appeared at the police station to give his statement more or less while this 'press conference' was being conducted!

Incidentally the same issue of this newspaper covered the Saturday 1st September session of the inquest. The proceedings concluded in this manner:

This being the whole of the evidence to be taken that day, Inspector Abberline asked for an adjournment of some length,, as certain things were coming to the knowledge of the police, and they wished for time to make inquiries.
The coroner replied that he should like to hear on Monday the two butchers who had been referred to, as well as evidence as to the departure of the deceased from the situation at Wandsworth.
Inspector Abberline - The butchers have been summoned.
Inspector Helsby remarked that the deceased's departure from her situation at Wandsworth had to do with a case of larceny. The evidence for which the Coroner asked should be produced. A juryman - Can we have the husband?
Inspector Abberline - Yes, sir.

Again, nothing there about the real discoverer of Polly being called.

The Times report of 3rd September gives a similar account. It is more ambiguous about when this statement was made:

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.

This led me to believe that it was part of his inquest statement but the Daily News makes it clear that this was not the case.

[Fisherman]

Thank you, David! It was exactly the answer I hoped for!

The best,
Fisherman