Cross Theory II

[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.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Abby

Mr Lucky
This thread is a train wreck.

Yes!

Good luck

Thanks

[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]

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.

[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]

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?

Hi Caz,

We don't have an account of it, we have Pauls version in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper, the bit where Paul's telling Mizen(He's not named in Lloyds's) what he had seen, but Mizen wouldn't stop knocking up and would not say whether he should go or not.

At the inquest, if Cross was just 'a man passing' as Mizen claimed, then the fact that Paul was already there at the time can be skirted round, as the conversation between Cross and Mizen is cited as the reason why Mizen leaves to go to the scene.

The a man passing in company with another man also a carman type quotes aren't written as two men passing, because they weren't two men passing. There was one man passing who was in company with another man, they're not the same thing

By not actually bring Paul into the main part of the conversation, basically Paul version in Lloyds had been countered by the combined testimonies of Cross and Mizen, the only reference to Paul made by Mizen is the question by the Coroner - ‘The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross? The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman.’

Paul isn't in the Court, the Court had no idea who he was, so no one needs to mention him directly.

And it the way it was done Mizen still tells 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' as what he said was in reference to Cross alone

[caz]

If you say so, Mr. Lucky.

Seriously though, I'm not entirely convinced, because Paul's account was already in the public domain via the newspaper, even if they hadn't tracked him down yet when the inquest was under way. I should have thought it rather crucial therefore to have the policeman's version of how the news was first broken to him about Nichols, and by whom. And that would have been Paul's words to him if Lechmere really had arrived separately to serve up sloppy seconds.

The whole truth would have begun at the beginning, with the first words Mizen heard relating to the woman lying in Buck's Row. That would be the case whether he knew which carman was which, and which one was at the inquest and which one wasn't.

Unless you are saying everything was 'cleaned up' to spare Mizen's blushes over not going directly to the scene - which again would have made him less than truthful. I thought the idea was to demonstrate that only Lechmere was intentionally economical with the truth.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hypothetical scenario for you, Mr. Lucky:

First carman approaches Mizen and says: "I've just killed a woman in Buck's Row, catch me when you can, copper", then runs off like the wind and Mizen loses him. Second carman approaches Mizen and says: "You are wanted in Buck's Row, there's a woman lying there drunk or dead".

Mizen and the second carman duly attend the inquest, while the first carman understandably doesn't show his face.

Now would you still say that Mizen told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth by only stating what the carman attending the inquest said to him, because the one who had confessed to the murder had sensibly stayed well away?

The first carman 'isn't in the Court, the Court had no idea who he was, so no one needs to mention him directly'.

Hmmm, no wonder the killer escaped justice if that was the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr Lucky]

If you say so, Mr. Lucky.

It's how the law works !

Seriously though, I'm not entirely convinced, because Paul's account was already in the public domain via the newspaper, even if they hadn't tracked him down yet when the inquest was under way. I should have thought it rather crucial therefore to have the policeman's version of how the news was first broken to him about Nichols, and by whom. And that would have been Paul's words to him if Lechmere really had arrived separately to serve up sloppy seconds.

Maybe Paul was actually saying something else, according to Lloyd's he was telling Mizen what he 'had seen'. Later from Cross's testimony, he tells us that Paul thinks the woman is alive and that he suggested that they prop her up, and Cross refused.
So, if that was the case and Paul then leaves on his own to find a policeman is he going to say that, I found a dead woman and so I tried to prop her up ? I think its more likely that he was actually telling Mizen about a woman who might be alive and there's a man with her, which is why Mizen didn't leave immediately.

The whole truth would have begun at the beginning, with the first words Mizen heard relating to the woman lying in Buck's Row. That would be the case whether he knew which carman was which, and which one was at the inquest and which one wasn't.

What's 'the beginning', do you want to know what he had for breakfast?
the beginning is what is relevant to the death of Nichols, if it is Cross that had actually told Mizen the woman was definitely dead and not Paul, then the story begins with Cross speaking to Mizen.

Unless you are saying everything was 'cleaned up' to spare Mizen's blushes over not going directly to the scene - which again would have made him less than truthful. I thought the idea was to demonstrate that only Lechmere was intentionally economical with the truth

That the my point Mizen, isn't being economical with the truth. As long as Paul hadn't said that the woman was dead then everything fits.

Things aren't being cleared up for Mizen benefit, Paul in Lloyd's had told the world he had spoke to a policeman on Buck's row, elsewhere in the same edition this is qualified by Paul, (the Lloyd's representative spoke to Paul twice, once on Friday evening and again after the inquest on saturday) stating that the policeman he spoke to was 'not of that beat' (so Lloyd's are covering themselves here, as they do when they make it clear that it's Paul statement). However the general impression most would gain from reading the remarkable statement was that was Neil was the policeman Paul had spoken to and Neil had not been truthful when giving evidence. I believe that the court and the police would want to correct this false impression.

[Mr Lucky]

Hypothetical scenario for you, Mr. Lucky:

Hi again Caz

I don't think this is a realistic scenario!

The whole investigation would be done down different lines, it's like hypothetical chalk and cheese, Caz !

[moonbegger]

Hello ML ,

I do think that Pauls Lloyds statement contains more truths than it does lies , and I can also see how his suggestion " I left the other man there , and would send the first Policeman I found " Also ties in with it being Paul who may have made initial contact with Mizen with CrossMere close behind . I also think that at the time of initial contact between Carman and Mizen , it would not have been in instantly memorable event for Mizen . Who said what first, and when they said it. I cannot see it being really high on his priority list . It is more than plausible that Two faceless carmen and a few things said from each of them became blended into one fact .. A woman was on her back ! Dead or drunk. There was clearly not as much importance attached to that faithful meeting back then, as we would have it today .

CrossMere was also made to look a tad suspect , by Pauls Lloyd suggestions , which would also lend weight to the possibility that Crossmere may well have seized the opportunity (in Pauls absence) to dampen down the accusatory fires which he may have felt warming around his ankles.
He may well have been a few yards behind Paul , but by saying they walked together ( which technically they did ) he may have just been trying to shake off a bit of that undeserved heat he was obviously feeling .

I am still not seeing a guilty suspect here ML , just a lot of suspect witnesses.

As for the " did Crossmere cut her throat when Paul left" I thought I addressed that a while ago on another thread, suggesting the killer waited for them both to leave before finishing her off .

As for CrossMere doing it .. Why would he ? Surely at this point he is not guilty of anything ( nothing he is going to be hunted down for anyway) his best bet here, would surely be to leave it a day or two and try again ( witness free ) .

best of luck ,

moonbegger .

[Mr Lucky]

I do think that Pauls Lloyds statement contains more truths than it does lies , and I can also see how his suggestion " I left the other man there , and would send the first Policeman I found " Also ties in with it being Paul who may have made initial contact with Mizen with CrossMere close behind .

Hi Moon

Well there is also other indications, like this chunk of text I've mentioned elsewhere;-

‘In front of this gateway the woman was found by two men, who first supposed her to be drunk, but closer inspection showed first a pool of blood in the gutter just before her, and then the deathly whiteness of the woman’s face stained with blood. One of them remained by her, while the other found Constable Neil.’ - Sunderland Daily Echo 1 Sept. 1888

I also think that at the time of initial contact between Carman and Mizen , it would not have been in instantly memorable event for Mizen . Who said what first, and when they said it. I cannot see it being really high on his priority list . It is more than plausible that Two faceless carmen and a few things said from each of them became blended into one fact .. A woman was on her back ! Dead or drunk. There was clearly not as much importance attached to that faithful meeting back then, as we would have it today .

Yes, I think that's a reasonable assessment.

CrossMere was also made to look a tad suspect , by Pauls Lloyd suggestions , which would also lend weight to the possibility that Crossmere may well have seized the opportunity (in Pauls absence) to dampen down the accusatory fires which he may have felt warming around his ankles.

Yes I agree that what Paul said in Lloyd's may be enough to cause Cross to come forward whether he was innocent or guilty

He may well have been a few yards behind Paul , but by saying they walked together ( which technically they did ) he may have just been trying to shake off a bit of that undeserved heat he was obviously feeling .

But there was no heat as long as everyone thought that the woman was already dead when they left. That's the point, he looks worse by claiming that they abandoned her, why say that if he hadn't?

I am still not seeing a guilty suspect here ML , just a lot of suspect witnesses.

As for the " did Crossmere cut her throat when Paul left" I thought I addressed that a while ago on another thread, suggesting the killer waited for them both to leave before finishing her off

Well I do remember that, due to the parallels with what I thought at the time, but there was the problem with where did he hide, and the most likely scenario was that one man would wait with her, while the other fetched help. I think anyone else would flee, and take their chances that she wasn't revived or make sure that she was dead in the first place before they left.

As for CrossMere doing it .. Why would he ? Surely at this point he is not guilty of anything ( nothing he is going to be hunted down for anyway) his best bet here, would surely be to leave it a day or two and try again ( witness free ) .

But surely it's an attempted murder even if they managed to revive Nichols?

best of luck

Many thanks, Moon

[Stewart P Evans]

Revive

I thought it might be an idea to revive this thread in view of recent comments regarding the 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' theory.

Those proposing the Nichols inquest witness Charles Lechmere (Cross) as Jack the Ripper seem to have been convinced by the fact that the 1888 press reports and the police reports refer to him as Charles Cross and not Lechmere, his given name. This they regard as highly suspicious, they see it as Lechmere 'hiding' his true identity. They support the idea with suggestions that he deliberately lied both to the police and at the inquest, thus bolstering the suggestion that he was the murderer.

When addressing the Lechmere as the Ripper theory there are many points to be considered. For instance, the theory seems to demand that the police were never aware of his true identity and that they failed to properly investigate both him and his story. This, of course, can only be speculation as the majority of the contemporary documentation; his original statement, full details of the investigation, etc., are all missing.

In addition to the police documents, the inquest papers are also missing and cannot be assessed. That leaves only the various press reports of the time and they don't always agree. There are also many variables and unknown factors which would have had a bearing on the whole story.

[Stewart P Evans]

Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper

The witness Robert Paul, who was also on his way to work at the same time as Lechmere/Cross and came upon him in Buck's Row, was interviewed by the press and gave his story. This appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of Sunday 2 September 1888, when the incident was still fresh in his mind.

'Remarkable Statement

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said:- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row in my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I know the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at this spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.'

It will be noted that this report has apparently been 'slanted' to increase Paul's importance as it does not mention the fact that Lechmere/Cross accompanied Paul and found the police officer (Mizen) with him. It also takes the opportunity to have a 'pop' at the police.

[Abby Normal]

The witness Robert Paul, who was also on his way to work at the same time as Lechmere/Cross and came upon him in Buck's Row, was interviewed by the press and gave his story. This appeared in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper of Sunday 2 September 1888, when the incident was still fresh in his mind.

'Remarkable Statement

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said:- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row in my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I know the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at this spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.'

It will be noted that this report has apparently been 'slanted' to increase Paul's importance as it does not mention the fact that Lechmere/Cross accompanied Paul and found the police officer (Mizen) with him. It also takes the opportunity to have a 'pop' at the police.

Thanks Stewart for posting this.
It's too bad that Paul is apparently taking a pop at the police because it seems to also be tied into how cold she was and how long she was a dead and that the police must have not been doing there job also because they had not patrolled the street where she was.
Paul makes it seem as though she must have been lying there dead for quite a while which of course does not help the lechmerians theory.

But then again, his apparent taking a shot at the police makes me question just how truthful he was about how cold she was and how long she was dead.