Cross Theory II

[Mr Lucky]

It was a South Eastern Middlesex County inquest, conducted by a coroner. Metropolitan Police Service Divisions did not factor into the equation.

What are you talking about?

[Colin Roberts]

It was a South Eastern Middlesex County inquest, conducted by a coroner. Metropolitan Police Service Divisions did not factor into the equation.

What are you talking about?

There was no such thing ...

Do you mean why was H-div Mizen at the J-Div inquest on Monday in the first place?

... as a "J-Div inquest".

[Mr Lucky]

There was no such thing ...



... as a "J-Div inquest".

Oh, pointless semantics. Whatever.

[Colin Roberts]

Oh, pointless semantics. Whatever.

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.

[Mr Lucky]

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.

[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...

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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