Cross Theory II

[caz]

Well I must say I'm thoroughly confused now. In all the other Cross threads - sorry, Colin, Lechmere threads - I got the distinct impression that while Paul claimed in the newspaper to have spoken to Mizen, the good PC himself only mentioned Lechmere speaking to him, with Paul only there to make up the numbers.

So Mr. Lucky, if Paul collared Mizen first, while Lechmere was putting the finishing touches to Nichols, where is Mizen's account of what Paul said to him before Lechmere arrived and added his own thruppence worth?

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

Mr. Lucky

Sorry but all those accounts you cited suggest that Cross was not alone when he met Mizen.

Anyway, you look like your mind's made up and it certainly isn't for me to try and change it. But I cannot see it myself.

JB

Hi John,

I agree, that he 'was not alone'. I am not saying that there wasn't two men or that the two men didn't leave Mizen together.

I am saying that Paul talked to Mizen first, he was already with Mizen when Cross arrived separately.

literally - Cross was 'a man passing' not one of two men passing.

You had originally claimed that Mizen had said that the two men arrived together, but he didn't actually say that, it is just inferred from Mizen's testimony, which admittedly is vague, combined with Cross's very definite we left together.

[John Bennett]

Mr. Lucky

Sorry but all those accounts you cited suggest that Cross was not alone when he met Mizen.

Anyway, you look like your mind's made up and it certainly isn't for me to try and change it. But I cannot see it myself.

JB

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Abby

Mr Lucky
This thread is a train wreck.

Yes!

Good luck

Thanks

[Mr Lucky]

Mmm. Bit rude. Anyway...

It was rude, and I apologise.

Which suggests that two men approached Mizen.

That is the point, it does suggest that is what had happened, but at no point does Mizen himself actually say that he was approached by the two men, his entire testimony is in reference to Cross until he is questioned by the coroner about the other man

If we look at the press reports of Mizen's testimony they can be grouped together in two distinct groups according to how they describe Cross

[A] a carman passing in company with another man
[B] a man passing

Here's some example's of [A]

[1] ‘when a carman who passed in company with another man’
[2] ‘when a carman passing by in company with another man’
[3] ‘a carman passing by, in company with another man’

[1] Daily Telegraph 4 Sept. 1888
[2] Daily News 4 Sept. 1888
[3] Illustrated police news 8 Sept. 1888

This type of phrase a carman passing by in company with another man, is a cumbersome way of saying two men, so where does it come from, generally the other press reports that describe just ‘a man passing’ have at the end of the statement some additional information.

[4] ‘A man passing’ [and] ‘Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street.’
[5] ‘and a man passing’ [and] ‘When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.’
[6] ‘when a man, who looked like a carman’ [and] ‘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.’
[7] ‘when someone who was passing’ [and] ‘The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross? The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.’

[4] The Star 3 Sept. 1888
[5] The Times 4 Sept. 1888
[6] Echo 3 Sept. 1888
[7] The Morning Advertiser 4 Sept. 1888

So these reports have Mizen describing Cross on his own as 'a man passing' the other man is introduce into the proceeding by Baxter's question.

The exception is the Evening Standard, which finishes Mizen’s statement before the point regarding the other man is raised by the coroner and leaves us with the impression Cross was on his own whilst talking to Mizen

[8] ‘when some one who was passing’
[8] Evening Standard 4 Sept 1888


My conclusion-

It seems that Mizen actually described Cross as ‘a man passing’

The 'man passing in company with another man' quotes that makes us think they were together are actually caused by newspaper editing, Baxter's question is being combined into the start of the press report of Mizen's testimony.

[Abby Normal]

Mr Lucky
This thread is a train wreck.

And this coming from someone who is realatively neutral on the Lech as suspect idea. On the one hand I am very sceptical, for various reasons, on lechs viability as a suspect, but on the other hand I do find it somewhat suspicious (although I know there could be a reasonable explanation) about the name change and other possible red flags.

However, Lechmere and Fish have at least been very clear and consice in their arguments. I have read this entire thread twice and cant really make out what you are trying to say. You started out arguing with Colin who pointed out the discrepency in the Lech/Cross name change(which would be something I think you would agree with!) and its been all down hill since.

And something about Paul being the hot potato? Him arriving first to Mizen? Is he an accomplice? Why would he lie? What!?!

Good luck.

[John Bennett]

That's a lie

Go find a quote from Mizen that says anything about being 'approached by two men'

and don't come back till you do

Mmm. Bit rude. Anyway...

"Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to one o'clock on Friday morning he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man..." ; Lloyds Weekly News, 9 Sept

"Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there. Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed. Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. "; The Star, 3 Sept

"Constable G. Mizen, 56H, stated that at a quarter-past four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street.."; Walthamstow & Leyton Guardian, 8 Sept. and The Times, 4 Sept.

"..but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street they met PC 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen..." ; Report by Abberline, 19 Sept. MEPO 3/140 ff. 242-56

"The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Buck's Row Whitechapel by Charles Cross and Robert Paul, carmen on their way to work. They informed PC 55H Mizen in Baker's Row..."; Report by Donald Swanson, 19 Oct. HO 144/221/A49301C ff. 129-34


Which suggests that two men approached Mizen.

[Colin Roberts]

Semantics again, Roberts

Why don't you back up your claim about the H div beat policeman at the inquest.

It is not semantics, and it is most certainly not "semantics again".

Specification of the convening authority of an inquest is not semantics. Period!

What "claim" have I made regarding "the H div beat policeman at the inquest"?

Quote it, please.

And ...

... don't come back till you do

I'm beginning to perceive you as being someone that is well into his nineties.

[Mr Lucky]

We also have Reid, ex Inspector of J Division.

Monty

who is in charge of Tabram investigation, he's not a beat Pc

[Mr Lucky]

So you have changed your mind again?

No

PC Mizen would never had been patroling on knocking people up in Bucks Row.
PC Mizen would have already been required to attend the Inquest before the Lloyds article went to press. He was at the Inquest because two men came up to him and told him about the woman in Bucks Row who it was subsequently found out was dead, so a chain of events needed to be established and who these potential witnesses/suspects were. Also don't forget Mizen went to Bethnal Green Police Station (J Division) to get the police ambulance and took the body to the mortuary on H Division. I suppose that is suspicious as well

Not saying anything suspicious

[Mr Lucky]

And it appears PC Mizen said was approached by two men, not one plus another who turned up a bit later.

That's a lie

Go find a quote from Mizen that says anything about being 'approached by two men'

and don't come back till you do

[Mr Lucky]

Now we've gone full-circle.

It wasn't a Police inquiry, it was a Coroner's inquest. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

.

Semantics again, Roberts

Why don't you back up your claim about the H div beat policeman at the inquest.

The Met had no authority with which to "have Mizen take the stand"

Mizen had clearly taken the stand whoever the authority

yet, he tells us nothing about Nichols other than she was bleeding from the neck, something Neil and Llewellyn had both covered in greater detail.

[Monty]

We also have Reid, ex Inspector of J Division.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Robert Paul had given a statement in Lloyds that claimed that the policeman he spoke too wouldn't go to the scene, but he carried on calling the people up.

Lloyd's claimed that this was on Bucks row. Neil, the beat police man from Bucks row, had already given testimony and had mention nothing of this.

The police would have every reason to correct this false impression caused by Paul's statement and have Mizen take the stand and state that he was the PC that the two men spoke too.

Why this is so contentious I have no idea.

Mizen is the third PC to arrive at the murder scene, so I'll will ask you again, as I haven't a clue, what is the reason for him to be at the inquest?

So you have changed your mind again?

PC Mizen would never had been patroling on knocking people up in Bucks Row.
PC Mizen would have already been required to attend the Inquest before the Lloyds article went to press. He was at the Inquest because two men came up to him and told him about the woman in Bucks Row who it was subsequently found out was dead, so a chain of events needed to be established and who these potential witnesses/suspects were. Also don't forget Mizen went to Bethnal Green Police Station (J Division) to get the police ambulance and took the body to the mortuary on H Division. I suppose that is suspicious as well.

[Monty]

And it appears PC Mizen said was approached by two men, not one plus another who turned up a bit later.

This is kinda what I'm referring to when I asked where Mizen fitted into this?

Monty