Cross Theory II

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

Ok. you tell me why was Mizen at the inquest?

My claim is it's because he is the PC Cross and Paul spoke to, and that's why H Div beat PC Mizen is there, otherwise he wouldn't be. it's as simple as that.

[Colin Roberts]

Welcome to the Cuckoo's Nest.

[John Bennett]

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

The inquest reports make it quite clear that Lechmere/Cross and Paul left the scene together. Or have I missed something?

[Rob Clack]

Ok. you tell me why was Mizen at the inquest?

My claim is it's because he is the PC Cross and Paul spoke to, and that's why H Div beat PC Mizen is there, otherwise he wouldn't be. it's as simple as that.

That's not what you said.

This is what you said:

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.

You haven't got a clue, have you?

It's no secret that I think Lechmere is a poor suspect (I don't think he even should be on the suspects lists) but at least when I have my little discussions with Ed, he's well read on the subject, even if I don't agree with a lot of what he says.

[Colin Roberts]

You haven't got a clue, have you?

Clearly, he does not!

[Rob Clack]

Clearly, he does not!

I wasn't going to bite, but it's been one of those days.

[Mr Lucky]

The inquest reports make it quite clear that Lechmere/Cross and Paul left the scene together. Or have I missed something?

Hi John,

I'm accusing Cross of lying about that.

[Colin Roberts]

I wasn't going to bite, but it's been one of those days.

I don't think Ivanovic would be half as obstinate as this guy here.

[Bridewell]

Hi John,

I'm accusing Cross of lying about that.

Why would he need to lie about that, and where is the evidence that he did so? 'Accusing' is a strong word to use if you have none.

[Bridewell]

Duplicate post. Sorry.