Cross Theory II

[Rob Clack]

That's the point about J Division, is that the working lads building is in J Div territory, with a inquest about a murder investigated by J Div CID, so it's not likely that H Div Mizen just happened to have been assign to crowd duty or anything.

So why did the authorities (who were not expecting Cross) need H Division Mizen at the inquest?
Answer- So that he could give testimony to counter what Paul had said in his Lloyds statement.

That's the point I was trying to make.

The murders of Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman, Alice McKenzie and Francis Coles all took place in H Division and their Inquest took place in the Working Lads Institute so that's not really relevant. Also Mary Ann Nichols body was taken to the Whitechapel Mortuary which was in H Division. As Colin has pointed out, Police Divisions had nothing to do Coroners Inquests.
It is quite obvious why Mizen was at the Inquest and it was nothing to do with what Paul said to Lloyds.

Rob

[Mr Lucky]

However, to confirm procedure, Mizen would have complied a report of events and submitted it to J Division. This he clearly did as Baxter, who would have been working from J Divisions report, called Mizen as a witness as he deemed his testimony significant.

Hi Monty

How long did Mizen have to submit this report?

Thanks

[Mr Lucky]

I would rather focus on whether Paul left Charles Lechmere with the body, and whether Charles Lechmere only then used his knife, but...

Still, no takers on that one..

I think Fisherman does fully accept that Mizen did not take their names.
The standard version may not take account of this, but then the standard version of what happened in the opening, say, forty minutes of the Nichols case (timed from tarpaulin episode) is very flaky. That is true even if Lechmere is thought innocent.
I think it is accepted by most people who have followed these threads that Charles Lechmere must have independently come forward to give his account and at the same time he would have been asked his details (name, address, place of work).
The only question is when.
I think the most obvious time, that fits everything we know about the matter, was on Sunday evening – although you favour Monday morning.

I think you and fisherman may accept it, now. But not the rest of ripperology, most of whom don't even follow the various Cross threads. I was just pointing out to you that even a year ago that Fish thought different in his article.

On the second policeman...
Thain testified after Mulshaw. Neil had already testified. Accordingly Thain would probably not have been in the room and it wouldn’t have been deemed an important enough issue to get Thain in to confirm it was him. That is my guess anyway.

I'm glad you haven't mentioned his cape! Maybe at some distant point in the future we should go over all this.

I agree that there is some significance in Mizen being from a different Division.
However it is not unusual for a policeman from one Division to be called to give evidence in a case that happened in a neighbouring Division, provided of course he had something useful to contribute. This was clearly the case with Mizen.
So far as this case goes, the significance of the Divisional boundary was that it caused a bit of jurisdictional confusion, with the Tabram and Smith murders being murdered in H and Nichols in J. Initially it was thought all three were linked and so the investigation had to be coordinated across the two divisions.

Going back to my original point, If I claim that Cross had turned up at the spur of the moment at the inquest on Monday morning, and the only person who can connect him with the scene is Mizen (as Paul hadn't come forward) then it is extremely fortunate that Mizen is there at the inquest to recognise him and enable him to give evidence.

That's the point about J Division, is that the working lads building is in J Div territory, with a inquest about a murder investigated by J Div CID, so it's not likely that H Div Mizen just happened to have been assign to crowd duty or anything.

So why did the authorities (who were not expecting Cross) need H Division Mizen at the inquest?
Answer- So that he could give testimony to counter what Paul had said in his Lloyds statement.

That's the point I was trying to make.

Remember that Mizen claimed in his testimony that Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row. Lechmere in his testimony flatly contradicted this claim

Yes !! This is a really important bit.

[Monty]

Ah – I’ve been expecting you!
Irrelevant to you.
And probably to the police. But the police aren’t very good at this sort of investigation. Still aren’t.

And you are better?

Monty

[Lechmere]

Ah – I’ve been expecting you!
Irrelevant to you.
And probably to the police. But the police aren’t very good at this sort of investigation. Still aren’t.

[Monty]

The investigation is headed by the CID Inspector whichever Division found the body unless deemed serious enough by Central Office for them to take over. It this case it was Helson.

Spratlings report dated 31 August was the initial summary and clearly mentions a PC 55H Smizen. Spratling made 2 errors, apart from the name the collar number was incorrect (Mizen was 56H).

However, to confirm procedure, Mizen would have complied a report of events and submitted it to J Division. This he clearly did as Baxter, who would have been working from J Divisions report, called Mizen as a witness as he deemed his testimony significant.

"I don’t know why we should ‘respect’ Charles Lechmere’s decision to mislead the inquest by giving a name other than his legal name, a legal name by which he was known in every instance that we have where he dealt with authority – be it census takers, birth, death and marriage forms, baptisms, school boards, trade directories and electoral registrators."

You have no evidence that Cross mislead at all Edward. This is pure assumption. Cross gave that name himself and any statement to claim he mislead the inquest is based on nothing but personal opinion. The fact he gave his address and work details is hardly an attempt to mislead or misinform.

He gave that name, Mizen confirmed him as the man who spoke to him and Paul confirmed Cross recollection of events.

The name used is irrelevant.

Monty

[Colin Roberts]

Mary Jane Kelly was murdered within H Division jurisdiction, but her inquest was held within G Division jurisdiction.

Hmmm!

Does anyone know a Penny Dreadful publisher?

[Lechmere]

I would rather focus on whether Paul left Charles Lechmere with the body, and whether Charles Lechmere only then used his knife, but...

I think Fisherman does fully accept that Mizen did not take their names.
The standard version may not take account of this, but then the standard version of what happened in the opening, say, forty minutes of the Nichols case (timed from tarpaulin episode) is very flaky. That is true even if Lechmere is thought innocent.

I think it is accepted by most people who have followed these threads that Charles Lechmere must have independently come forward to give his account and at the same time he would have been asked his details (name, address, place of work).
The only question is when.
I think the most obvious time, that fits everything we know about the matter, was on Sunday evening – although you favour Monday morning.

On the second policeman...
Thain testified after Mulshaw. Neil had already testified. Accordingly Thain would probably not have been in the room and it wouldn’t have been deemed an important enough issue to get Thain in to confirm it was him. That is my guess anyway.

I agree that there is some significance in Mizen being from a different Division.
However it is not unusual for a policeman from one Division to be called to give evidence in a case that happened in a neighbouring Division, provided of course he had something useful to contribute. This was clearly the case with Mizen.
So far as this case goes, the significance of the Divisional boundary was that it caused a bit of jurisdictional confusion, with the Tabram and Smith murders being murdered in H and Nichols in J. Initially it was thought all three were linked and so the investigation had to be coordinated across the two divisions.

Also as Mizen was from a different Division to Neil he would have had less opportunity to compare notes and realise that Neil had not already seen Lechmere and Paul.
Remember that Mizen claimed in his testimony that Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row. Lechmere in his testimony flatly contradicted this claim.

[Colin Roberts]

Like I said ...

You have completely misunderstood me from the onset.

Mizen was called as a witness because of his involvement, such as it was. The fact that he was an H Division constable had no bearing whatsoever on this very simple fact.

I challenge you to find a single poster that disagrees with me on this particular point.

[Mr Lucky]

You have completely misunderstood me from the onset.

No, you interrupted a discussion I was having with some one else.

Mizen was called as a witness because of his involvement, such as it was. The fact that he was an H Division constable had no bearing whatsoever on this very simple fact.

The fact that he was H Division and the murder occurred in J Division is relevant. The fact that Mizen thinks the two men have been sent by Neil is relevant. The fact that Neil gives testimony on Saturday claiming to have discovered the body is relevant.

[Mr Lucky]

I think it is clear that Charles Lechmere did not give any name to Mizen when they met on the corner of Old Montague and Hanbury Streets.
Mizen says as much in his inquest testimony – one report spells this out – Mizen only now knew that his name was Charles Cross.

I don't think standard theory excepts that at all, even Christer in his article in Rip didn't -

‘Mizen saw no need to delay them further, contenting himself to take their names and addresses for the record, and sending them on their way, no doubt with a parting word of thanks.’

If the authorities didn't know Cross's name and address how did they find him in time to get him to take the stand on Monday ? He must have come forward himself.

Incidentally it seems likely that the other policeman seen by Mulshaw was Thain – going to get his cape. But I will not go into when this happened as it will derail the thread.

Yes, it will derail the thread considering Thain was there at the inquest but Mulshaw didn't point him out. Police-constable two and Church-row have lead me on a merry dance for years.

However none of this has any specific relevance to Mr Lucky’s newly presented theory

It's looking very grim indeed

[Colin Roberts]

No!

My point is that Mizen would have been called as a witness regardless of the fact that Nichols's body was discovered within J Division jurisdiction.

No, he wouldn't.

Mizen, is only being called as a witness because he is the policeman Cross and Paul spoke to on Friday morning.

If they hadn't spoke to him he would not have been called. if he had not spoke to them he would not have been at the inquest.

Perhaps you can back up what you're claiming by naming some more H division beat policemen who were at the Nichols inquest.

You have completely misunderstood me from the onset.

Mizen was called as a witness because of his involvement, such as it was. The fact that he was an H Division constable had no bearing whatsoever on this very simple fact.

I challenge you to find a single poster that disagrees with me on this particular point.

[Lechmere]

I think it is clear that Charles Lechmere did not give any name to Mizen when they met on the corner of Old Montague and Hanbury Streets.
Mizen says as much in his inquest testimony – one report spells this out – Mizen only now knew that his name was Charles Cross.

Incidentally it seems likely that the other policeman seen by Mulshaw was Thain – going to get his cape. But I will not go into when this happened as it will derail the thread.

However none of this has any specific relevance to Mr Lucky’s newly presented theory

[Mr Lucky]

Let’s also leave the Police Division stuff to one side.

No ! this is enormously important as far the case against is concerned.

Now let's look at the core issue...

Look's like we might be on our own on this!

[Lechmere]

Double yawn.

Actually he didn’t have a ‘legal identity’ at the inquest.
He gave his name to the inquest as Charles Cross and it was recorded in that manner.
His statements to the coroner were made in that guise, but legally his name was Charles Lechmere.

I don’t know why we should ‘respect’ Charles Lechmere’s decision to mislead the inquest by giving a name other than his legal name, a legal name by which he was known in every instance that we have where he dealt with authority – be it census takers, birth, death and marriage forms, baptisms, school boards, trade directories and electoral registrators.

Also Mr Lucky makes it clear that his suspicions were initially raised by the name swap.

However so long as we know who we are talking about it doesn’t matter a great deal – this is only a discussion forum.

Let’s also leave the Police Division stuff to one side.

As a means for cleanly discussing whether Charles Lechmere killed Nichols after his meeting with Paul and their touchy-feely act, this thread hasn’t got off to as good start!
Now let's look at the core issue...