Cross Theory II

[Phil H]

I seem to recall that we debated what was going on with the Nichols' killing.

By "we" I meant the wider membership of Casebook, Mr Lucky.

phil

[Mr Lucky]

But, again: Michael Connor is extremely disappointed by the fact that so many of us continue to refer to Lechmere as 'Cross'.

Well perhaps if he was here, and it was him, putting up with people swearing at him on line and snotty one-liners about 'grassy knolls', he'd have a point.

But since it's me that has to put up with that sort of behaviour, I'll carry on calling him Cross.

[Phil H]

But since it's me that has to put up with that sort of behaviour, I'll carry on calling him Cross.

How very much in character. I'm sure we'd expect nothing less.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

But since it's me that has to put up with that sort of behaviour, I'll carry on calling him Cross.

How very much in character. I'm sure we'd expect nothing less.

Phil

Why do you refer to yourself as 'we'?

perhaps you would also stop spamming up the thread?

[Phil H]

I won't reply as apparently you'd regard my post as "spam".

There is, of course the authorial "we". the collective "we" (denoting belonging). Even the "royal" we. Take your pick.

Clearly ironic humour isn't your thing.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Phil,

How very much in character.

That isn't

ironic humour

It's an personal attack and it's also spam so unless you got anything worth while to add to the discussion.....

[Colin Roberts]

... snotty one-liners about 'grassy knolls',

Did I forget to mention Roswell?

... I'll carry on calling him Cross.

... and stagnate in yesterday's knowledge of the case.

[Phil H]

My sincere apologies, Mr Lucky. What I said was certainly not intended as a personal attack.

Phil

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Phil,

Fair enough, the thread didn't get off to a very good start.

Have you got any questions about the theory?

[curious]

Here’s the conclusion;- I not only believe that Charles Cross was Jack the Ripper, but that Robert Paul was the ‘hot potato’.


-

Hello, Mr. Lucky,

I don't understand what you mean by Robert Paul being the "Hot Potato"

curious

[Mr Lucky]

Hello, Mr. Lucky,

I don't understand what you mean by Robert Paul being the "Hot Potato"

curious

Hi Curious,

In my version Robert Paul had given false testimony, therefore they can not prosecute Cross for this murder.

It's a reference to something Mr Munro is alleged to have said about the case. the secret was a 'hot potato' ie something that was to hot to handle therefore it is passed on, Mr Munro wasn't at the Met when Paul gave evidence. this is something he may know about but wasn't culpable for. It would fit his description of a 'hot potato'.

[Monty]

I'm trying to figure out where Mizen fits into all of this.

Monty

[Mr Lucky]

I'm trying to figure out where Mizen fits into all of this.

Monty

Hi Monty

It's extremely complicated!

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

As in my version, where Cross turns up at the inquest on the spur of the moment, they wouldn't know that Cross was going to arrive, so why was Mizen already there, ready and waiting to introduce Cross to the court ?

Well, I think he was there initially to counter what Paul had said in his remarkable statement.

[Mr Lucky]

Inquest Comparisons (an occasional series) - Mizen and Mulshaw

Here Mizen is giving testimony and 'George Cross' is brought in and Mizen identifies him as 'the man who spoke to him on the morning in question'. Is Cross being visually identified by Mizen in the court because Mizen hadn't taken the men's names down at the time?

‘Police constable George Mizen, 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement.' - Morning Advertiser 4 Sept. 1888

To try to put this in a legal frame work, Mizen, describes him accordingly as 'someone who was passing' this is the way Mizen introduces the man to the court - not as a named individual, but as someone passing who said "You're wanted down there"

The man is then brought in and 'witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question' this is Mizen effectively pointing at Cross for the Courts benefit and saying - 'that's him, the man I've just been talking about'. The court then asks the man, what's your name? , and he replies 'George Cross'

When the Court calls Cross in to give evidence, they can then use his name, and the court knows he is the man who spoke to Mizen on the morning in question, other wise Mizen can't inform us of this directly as Mizen didn't know the men’s name. if Mizen had took down his name he could just give the court this information and the court could just call him as Charles Cross, they wouldn't have to bring him into the court during Mizen's testimony.

Even in some of the more heavily edited newspapers the are indications of this. Here, in the Times the first mention of the man is that he was passing and said something, then we learn that he is named Cross.

Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 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 that a woman had been found there. - Times 4th Sept 1888

There is a very similar incident regarding a visual identification recorded in some of the longer press reports of the testimony of Patrick Mulshaw as seen in the Morning Post 18th Sept. 1888

The Coroner - Was there any man running away?
Witness - No, sir. it is very quiet after eleven o’clock, and I should have noticed any one running away. You don’t see a policeman often in that quarter. I think I saw two that night.
Police-constable Niel<sic> stood up, and witness identified him as one of the constables who was patrolling his beat that night.

Neil had already given his testimony so he isn’t being identified for the benefit of the court,

So why would he need to be identified by Mulshaw in the instance ?, it seems that Mulshaw is corroborating (which is confirming the evidence already given) Neil’s earlier testimony, as Neil had claimed to be on that particular beat. Is he being visually identified by Mulshaw because he didn’t know Neil's name or number? The identity of the second policeman remains unknown.

So did Mizen who didn't know Cross's name visually identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question, and Mulshaw who didn't know Neil's name visually identified him as one of the policeman who was on that beat on the morning in question?

[Colin Roberts]

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

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