Cross Theory II

[Stewart P Evans]

Amazingly

The theorists then, amazingly, go on to claim that Lechmere/Cross gave the false surname of Cross instead of his real name to avoid identification. Many people, especially in Victorian times, used alternative names for many reasons. And, despite the name Lechmere appearing in all the surviving records (census, baptism, marriage, address/trade directories etc.) there may have been many reasons why Lechmere used (even for a short time) the surname of Cross, which was the name of his step-father of several years when he was young, and at which time he may well have adopted the name for a few years.

Although he gave the police the name Cross, he also gave his correct address and the name of his employers, surely an odd thing to do if he was trying to avoid identification. They would have had no trouble (and probably didn't) in tracing him. Indeed it might well be that he mentioned to Paul when they chatted as they walked away from the scene that he was also a carman and worked for Pickfords, thus allowing him to be identified as the other witness. Be that as it may, the inquest was open to the public and held in Whitechapel Road, and anyone attending could have recognized him and pointed out that his real name was Lechmere and not Cross.

The theorists, however, claim that the police failed to check him out, merely accepting what he said, despite the fact that he had been the first person upon a murder scene, such a person always being looked upon, initially, with some suspicion. And the investigation was headed up by the hugely experienced Abberline. The lack of full police and employer records of the time unfortunately makes it impossible to answer this one definitively.

The official written statement made by Lechmere/Cross has not survived, but who knows, it may have carried a police note to the effect that Lechmere wanted his (old) alternative surname to be used as he didn't want his family pestered by the press or anyone else. He wanted to avoid public identification. As we see, Paul was soon traced by the press and interviewed, so if this was Lechmere's reasoning it obviously worked. The report on Paul's interview started, '...Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement...", indicating that the press had got hold of his address and were waiting for him there in order to interview him.

[Stewart P Evans]

Mizen

Mizen was in the process of awakening persons, at different addresses, to get up for work ('knocking up') when approached by the two carmen. In his reported statement Paul said, "I saw one [police officer] 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." Paul said that the woman had been lying there for some time as she was so cold and that "...it shows 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." If we accept PC Neil's report, and there appears to be no reason why we shouldn't, he passed through Buck's Row every thirty minutes, and had last done so at 3.15 a.m., thirty minutes before discovering the body at 3.45 a.m. (just after Lechmere/Cross and Paul).

This pointed criticism of the police in the report is emphasized and was probably stressed by the newspaper as many of them indulged in attacking the police. A report of PC Mizen's inquest evidence carried in the Illustrated Police News of Saturday 8 September 1888 read as follows -
'At about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning, while he was at the corner of Hanbury-street and Baker's-row, a carman passing by, in company with another man, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row by a policeman. A woman is lying there." The witness then went to Buck's-row, and Police-constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. Nobody but Neil was with the body at that time. - In reply to a juryman, witness said that when the carman spoke to him he was engaged in knocking people up, and he finished knocking at the one place where he was at the time, giving two or three knocks, and then went directly to Buck's-row, not wanting to knock up anyone else.'

From this it is obvious that the criticism of Mizen carried in the press report was generally known and was an uncomfortable factor for Mizen. Thus it is not strange to see that he tries to minimize his lack of immediate response in attending Buck's Row and also states that the carman had told him that there was already a police officer there (thus reducing the urgency) a fact of which neither Lechmere/Cross nor Paul were aware, and would certainly have not stated as Mizen suggested. An inquest juryman had obviously picked up on the point. Another report gave the exchange as follows, Juryman, "Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?" Mizen, "No; I finished knocking up one person." When Lechmere/Cross gave his evidence a juryman, presumably the same one, said, "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's Row?" Lechmere/Cross replied, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's Row," and this, of course, was a fact confirmed separately by Paul.

The Lechmere/Cross theorists turn this aspect around and say that Mizen was spoken to by Lechmere/Cross who told him that 'a fellow PC awaited his arrival.' The reason for this, they speculate, was that Lechmere was the killer and was 'still carrying the murder weapon on his person' and was therefore keen not to be searched and did not want to be 'forced back to the murder site'; 'that was why he invented a fictive PC, something that made Mizen accept that the carmen had already been cleared.' This idea obviously does not make sense. First Lechmere/Cross had plenty of time to run off when he heard Paul approaching, which he did not do and he even brought the situation to the attention of the other man. Secondly he could have left the scene in a different direction to Paul stating he would also look for a PC to alert, and thirdly he would hardly have told PC Mizen that there was another policeman already at the scene in front of Paul who would have immediately contradicted it. No, it is obvious that the claim that there was another PC with the body (which there was by the time Mizen arrived) suited Mizen in minimizing his lack of immediate action, which had already been prominently noted in the press and also, no doubt, by his superiors.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi again
However, he was referred to as cross in all the news accounts correct? But all the other official documentation he signed as lechmere. I do find this somewhat odd, but of course could have a simple explanation such as he wanted to keep as anon as possible in the whole affair or that he was known as cross at pickfords and perhaps he just stuck with that when dealing with police.

[Stewart P Evans]

It will be seen...

It will be seen from the foregoing that, as with so many aspects of this case, timing is very important. In 1888 times given cannot be assumed to be very accurate. They were often estimated and should not be taken as precise. Yet we see that times are quoted as accurate by theorists even when the record casts doubt upon this. In the case of Lechmere/Cross and Paul we are generally given a time of 3.45 a.m. for the discovery of Nichols' body. And they were at the scene before the beat police constable, PC Neil. The police reports, however, state that PC Neil found the body at 3.45 a.m. (Swanson HO 144/221/A49301C ff129-132), 30 minutes after he had last passed the scene (when the body was not there) on his beat. PC Neil could not have been anywhere in sight of the murder scene when Lechmere/Cross, and then Paul, arrived and they must have been in Buck's Row for at least a few minutes. Thus it is not surprising to read in Inspector Abberline's report (MEPO 3/140 ff242-243) - "...about 3.40 a.m. 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Buck's Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back on the footway (against some gates leading into a stable yard) he stopped to look at the woman when another man (also on his way to work) names Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up, and Cross called his attention to the woman, but being dark they did not notice any blood, and passed on with the intention of informing the first constable they met, and on arriving at the corner of Hanbury St. and Old Montague St. they met P.C. 55H Mizen and acquainted him of what they had seen, and on the Constable proceeding towards the spot he found that P.C. 97J Neil (who was on the beat) had found the woman and was calling for assistance.'

By taking the times given in the summary police reports as being the most accurate we find that they state the body was found by PC Neil at 3.45 a.m., thus meaning that the body was probably found by Lechmere/Cross around 3.40 a.m., allowing a few minutes for the discovery, Paul joining him, the conversation and looking at the body and eventual walk along the remainder of Buck's Row, before PC Neil's patrol along Buck's Row and discovery of the body after the two men had departed. As previously stated, timing simply cannot be exactly ascertained given the variables and caveats involved. All time, in my opinion, should be preceded by the qualifier 'about'.

[Fisherman]

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.

There are, as you will perhaps be aware, around a hundred instances where the carmans´name was recorded, many of them accompanied by his own signature. That signature and that name was always Charles Allen Lechmere, apart from the one instance where he used the name Cross - in his contacts with the police relating to the Nichols murder.

Just like you say, there are unknown variables. We cannot know for sure that he did never sign himself Cross at other instances too, just as we cannot know whether he referred to himself as Cross in less formal contexts.

What we have is no information at all what he called himself colloquially, and we have around a hundred instances where his name was recorded. This is all. And we know that he called himself Cross when speaking to the police.

We know that it was common practice for many Eastenders to use aliases.

We know that Lechmere had had a stepfather named Cross.

We know it was and is common practice to lie to the police about your identity in order to avoid taking on the responsibility for criminal actions.

This sums up what we know about the name thing.

As for the name swap being "highly suspicious", my own take is that this is one of the parameters that can be regarded as suspicious about Lechmere. The extent to which the name swap is suspicious is hard to establish, and people will disagree over it.

However, when a person is examined as the possible culprit of a crime, the more details that surface, the more damning the overall picture becomes. If there has been a fire and if three people are hauled in, and it becomes clear that man number one had no flammable material on him as he was grabbed, man number two had a box of matches and man number three had a box of matches and a half-empty jar of petrol, then per definition, the third man is the one we will regard with greater suspicion, whereas the first man will be regarded as probably innocent. It applies, however, that he could still have been the arsonist, but thrown away whatever he lit the fire with after the deed.

The Cross name is in this respect a box of matches to me. Now, many people carry matches. But the other little bits involved in the case adds to the flammable material as we go along. The Mizen scam, the routes he would have walked to job and the corresponding murder sites, the timing, the pulled down clothes, the fact that Paul never said he heard Lechmere walking in front of him, the proximity between his mother´s lodgings and the Stride murder spot and the dumping place of the Pinchin Street torso, the fact that he took some twenty minutes to do a seven minute trek ... these things all add to the collection of flammable material.

Does it make for an open and shut case? No. We could meet the owner of a petrol station in the street at any given time, on his way to deliver samples of his petrol to clients.

In the end, though, the case for Lechmere has so much and so many details going for it that suspicion must cling to him, factually more so than in any other case we can make.

This is how I look upon it, and I welcome any discussion of the matter. Judging by your post, it is only an initial one, and you seemingly have more to discuss. If this is so, I am aware that you do so from an extremely knowledgeable position, speaking about the case generally. I will do what I can to provide whatever answers I can, and I hope that Edward will join the discussion too. It should make for a good discussion. We both know that any suspect can be defended, no matter how ridiculously bad the suspect is, as long as no conclusive evidence can rule the suspect out. This is why we have a thread where Vincent van Gogh is suggested as the Ripper, without anybody being able to disprove the whole thing (at least I think so, I don´t read the thread).

Lechmere is another proposition entirely, and he should - to my mind - be at the very top on the suspect list. But let´s see where we end up! Let me just say that this post will be my last post on the subject for some time, but I will check back tomorrow at the very latest. And I will alert Edward to the discussion!

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. The thread was originally created to promote Mr Lucky´s take on matters, but it will do nicely for a general discussion just the same!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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 !

[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.

[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

[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

[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