The Darkness of Bakers Row

[Fisherman]

If Mizen's account is completely accurate then;
* Lechmere falsely claimed there was a constable already with the body.
* Robert Paul chose not to expose Lechmere's lie to PC Mizen, to the press, or at the inquest.
* Robert Paul lied when he said PC Mizen continued knocking up instead of going directly to Buck's Row.
* Charles Lechmere chose to lie in support of Robert Paul's lie.

None of which makes any sense.



Perhaps you should look in the mirror when you say things like that.

This is more or less the same things as you have already had an answer to. it is not a fact that Paul was within earshot when Mizen was spoken to by Lechmere.

But I think this will have to do for now. I intend to invite you to debate in the near future, so you are going to need all the time you can find to sink your teeth into the facts of the case in advance.

I looked myself in the mirror only this morning. It looked like ****, but that is due to age.

[Fisherman]

The only evidence against Charles Lechmere is"

* He found a murder victim.
* He lived in the area.

Nope again. How could his living in the area be evidence against Lechmere, to begin with? And if it IS, how could his having a working trek that took him through Spitalfields NOT be evidence against him?
Because, as you said in another post, hundreds of men walked though that area?
What, then, about your claim that his living in the area constitutes evidence against him?

The claim you make is completely ridiculous. The fact that he found a murder victim, for example, is of very scant interest until we note the circumstance under which he found her.

This is the kind of post that really should have been left to posterity a decade ago. Or never surfaced at all.

[Fisherman]

Congratulations on refuting yourself. "Approaching a PC only to lie to him makes no sense at all." Yet that is exactly what you claim Charles Lechmere did.

No, it is not. I am not saying that Lechmere approached a PC ONLY to lie to him. His intentions would be to tell as much truth as possible - there WAS a woman in Bucks Row, she WAS lying on the broad of her back, for example. The lies he would have told would have been kept to a bare minimum, for the simple reason that any lie could potentially get him in trouble, while the truth could not.
So I´m afraid you are wrong, on account of how you missed out on the all important word "only".

[Fisherman]

That would be an incredibly stupid thing for Lechmere to do if he was the killer. Robert Paul was present and would know that Lechmere was lying about a constable being in Buck's Row.

Again we do not know if Paul was within earshot. There is good reason to think he was not. And there is also the chance that Paul wa within earshot - but had agreed beforehand with Lechmere to bluff any PC they found, to allow for them to get to their jobs. I do not think it is the likelier scenario, but since you asked for the full picture in your former post ...

Of course, Lechmere as the killer requires him to repeatedly do very stupid things - not just walk off when he heard Robert Paul, not let Paul just walk by, not agree to prop the body, not suggest splitting up, talking to PC Mizen, continuing to walk with Paul almost as far as Spitalfield's Market, and contacting the police to testify.

Just as is the case with the Chapman murer and the two sides there, there are two sides here too. I don't consider these things stupid at all, I think it was all part of Lechmeres response to the developments. There is a clear and logical line in it, allowing the same type of mindset throughout, a mindset of folding people and a will to play games, both of these matters very typical inclusions in psychopathic behavior. So the best you can hope for is for some people to agree with you, while others won't. And of course, I can list a thousand things that serial killers did that can or may look stupid in retrospect.

[Fisherman]

Perhaps you should take your own advice.

I always try to look at the full picture. It often involves two contradictory matters, and so it is impossible to believe in both - which does. not mean that one should not be given. In the case at hand, it is of vital importance to point out the great likelihood that Neil saw Mizen in Bucks Row. It is either that or he saw him in Bakers Row. What it is not, is a certainty that he MUST have seen Mizen in Bakers Row.

* When we look at where Lechmere was standing when Paul saw him, we should note all but one account clearly said he was in the middle of the road, and even the lone exception does not say he was hovering over the body.

I should not give you any trouble on that one, Fiver. I am not saying that he was hovering over the body, I am saying that he was close enough to it to be impossible to rule out as the killer, and I am adding that if he was the killer and wanted to fool Paul, he would likely have moved away from the body as far as possible before Paul arrived. It is a myth that Lechmere would become a likelier killer the closer he was to the body, and I think the long and hard fight to resist those who claim that he was standing over the body is a measure that is mostly used to falsely imply that this is the stance of the Lechmere theory. It is not.

* When we consider the possibility that a guilty man could have just walked off and escaped, we should note that the police said it would have been easy for the killer to do so.

Yes. And?

* In the disagreement between Lechmere and PC Mizen, we should note that Robert Paul was also present and that Paul's account supports Lechmere.

That would be weaving fact cloth from a pig, though. It is not a proven fact that Paul was within earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen.

* When we note that Chapman was killed near Lechmere's route to work, we should note that it was also on the route of Robert Paul and likely dozens if not hundreds of other people's route to work. We should also note that three witnesses put Chapman's death after Lechmere would have already started at work.

I may well be the person in history who has noted it the most times. Ads you know, it is an either or, and while you are either, I am or. When it comes to the hundreds of men walking the Hanbury Street route, none of them can be matched against a person who has been found all alone with another victim in the murder series in terms of suspect viability. To reach that stage, we need to have a named person proven to have used the route and proven to have something else that awards suspicion.

* When we consider the murder of Stride, we should note that one of the witnesses, William Marshall, almost certainly knew Charles Lechmere, as his wife had been with Lechmere's sister when she died. We should also note that killing Stride and Eddowes would require Lechmere to stay up for at least 23 hours straight or get up at least 3 hours early on his only day off.

If we knew that Marshall saw Stride with her killer, then there would have been ample reason to doubt Lechmeres candidacy for the killers role. When it comes to whether or not people can stay awake for 23 hours and the issue of Lechmeres potential timings on the day, I am saving my arguments for my upcoming debate with you. Let me just say that I am grateful for your contribution on the matter.

* When we use forensic sources to estimate bleed out times, we should note that Ingemar Thiblin said that there was "not much empirical data to go on", while Jason Payne James said there was none. We should also note their estimates were 10-15 minutes and 3-7 minutes, with the latter number being suggested to James by you.

Nope. They both gave the exact same estimate for the likeliest time it would take for Nichols to bleed out, going on the damage she had and the prevailing circumstances as 3-5 minutes. Thiblin then went on to offer what he considered an extreme, that was unlikely but could not be ruled out, of 10-15 minutes.

* When we attempt to use Scobie in an appeal to authority, we should note that Scobie was not given any of the witness statements or the coroner's summing up, just a list of bullet points.

We do not know what was in the material he was given. Very clearly, it involved the points of potential guilt, since what he was asked to do was to assess the legal applicability of them in a modern day trial. And much of these points are of course built on witness statements, so they will have been present in that material. I for one would have loved for him to have gone through every report, every book and every line that has ever been written about the Ripper, but as you will understand, that is not a possibility.

[Fisherman]

There are indeed a couple of newspaper versions of Neil’s deposition that say “from Thomas Street to Brady Street”, Christer. What stands out to me is that they none of them talk in the first person, but in the third person singular. The only version talking in the third person is the Times and that says “Police-constable John Neil 97 J, deposed that on Friday morning he was passing down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, and going in the direction of Brady-street, and he did not notice any one about.” That’s very much like the versions that appeared in various (5 or 6) newspapers that used the first person. In fact, the Times version on the whole is very similar to those 5 or 6 versions (which all are practically identical) and moreso than to the ‘third person versions.’

That makes me wonder if Neil, in fact, used the words “from Thomas Street to Brady Street”. Seeing that it didn’t appear in the ‘first person versions’, I think he didn’t.

What further reinforces that notion is this snippet from the Echo of 1 September:
“A very general opinion is now entertained that the spot where the body was found was not the scene of the murder. Buck's-row runs through from Thomas-street to Brady-street, and in the latter street what appeared to be bloodstains were found at irregular distances on the footpaths on either side of the way.

So, even though Buck’s Row officially ran from Baker’s Row to Brady Street by the time of the murder, it was apparently still seen as running from Thomas Street to Brady Street as it had been the situation when the part between Baker’s Row and Thomas Street was still called White’s Row.

And, of course, Buck’s Row was ‘defined’ (I don’t know a better/the right word) in most newspaper articles about the murder as “Buck’s Row, Thomas Street”, just as “Maidwell-street, Albany-road”, “Coburg-road, Old Kent-road”, “Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road”, “Ackland-street, Burdett-road”, “Mulberry-street, Commercial-road East”, “Osborn-place, Osborn-street”, “William-street, Cannon-street-road”, “New-road, Commercial-road” and so on.

All of this makes me inclined to believe Neil didn’t say that he was walking “from Thomas Street to Brady Street” in the sense that he turned into Buck’s Row from Thomas Street and then walked towards Brady Street. I’m inclined to think that it had to do with how Buck’s Row was still ‘defined’ at the time.

The exact wording in for example the Daily News is "Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, from Thomas Street to Brady street."

What you are suggesting is that the journalist felt he needed to point out the direction, is that right? personally, I don't think that very likely, although not impossible per se. I think it is quite perhaps possible that he was asked by the coroner in what direction he walked, if he indeed only said himself that he was walking down Bucks Row.

If it instead a case of the reporter adding "from Thomas Street to Brady Street", it would be odd if other reporters came up with the same helpful idea.

There is other papers, that do not mention Thomas Street, like for example the Daily Telegraph: "John Neil, police-constable, 97J, said: Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street."

Clearly, Neil must by his own account, or as the result of a question from the coroner, have pointed out the direction in which he was walking. And if it had been said "Police constable John Neil deposed that on Friday morning at a quarter to four o'clock he was going down Buck's row, Whitechapel, Thomas Street to Brady street.", I would have been more inclined to like your suggestion. But as long as it says that he deposed that he did the walkFROM Thomas Street to Brady Street, my hunch is that this tells us that he turned into Bucks Row from Thomas Street and then went straight down to Brady Street.

I take your point, though, and I cannot rule it out.




It is, of course, possible that on this occasion he didn’t go into Q. Ann Street at all. I would expect him to skip one or more of the “internals” like Court Street, Wood’s Buildings or Nelson’s Court, but not the “externals”, but I’m no expert on these matters, so I have to say it could have been the case. But if it was the case, then I’m quite confident Neil didn’t turn into Buck’s Row from the southern part of Thomas Street. Because that would have meant that Neil would not only skip Q. Ann Street, but also the westernmost part of Commercial Road, Baker’s Row, 'White’s Row' and the northern part of Thomas Street, which would be about 1 km or 3100 feet. Walking that distance at a speed of 3 miles or 4.8 km an hour, he would have covered it in about 11 minutes or 1/3 of his complete beat.

Another thing is that some newspapers wrote that quarter of an hour previously (before he found Nichols) he was in Whitechapel Road, where he saw some people apparently going to market, and some women. In 15 minutes, Neil would have covered about 1200 meters or 3900 feet. If true, then counting back this distance from the crime spot through the southern part of Thomas Street would get us not far from the crime spot in Buck’s Row. Not on Commercial Road.

For these reasons, I don’t see this as a very likely scenario. I think he will have walked up Baker’s Row on this occasion as well, turned right into Thomas Street and arrived at the crimes spot that way. Whether he included Queen Ann Street on this round as well is not so important for the thought I had: that Mizen may have seen Neil pass walking north on Baker’s Row before turning into Thomas Street and that way possibly making a connection between Lechmere saying he was needed and expecting Neil to have arrived wherever this woman was laying and sending the carmen his way.

Thanks for explaining it in detail. I see how you reason, but I myself think that Mizens testimony tells us that the first thing the carman likely brought up was the policeman in Bucks Row, and I think that would immediately have gotten Mizens full attention. A police colleague requesting help is something that would have peaked Jonas Mizens interest, and so I do not think the suggestion that he in retrospect started to believe that Lechmere must have spoken. of another PC has anything much going for it. In fact, even if the words about the PC did not come first, it would still get the same fun attention from Mizen when he heard it. To reason that he subconsciously would have made it up and fooled himself sounds untenable to me. The one thing that makes me consider it to some degree is then fact that we do not have any reaction from Mizen on record, insisting on how he was told about that PC. Then again, Mizen testified before Lechmere, and so he would likely not be present to hear Lechmeres claim. Therefore, we cannot tell Mizens reaction once he found out, it is lost to time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The inquest presence on behalf of Lechmere was one day. On the other days, year in and year out, he called himself Lechmere on every occasion we have on record with the possible and likely exception of another case of violent death.

Since we have around a hundred examples of him using Lechmere and one or two - both in connection with violent death - it takes a very flawed sense of mathematics to claim that he was likeliest calling himself Cross. What we can do is to say - like you do that he called himself Cross "at the time". "The time", meaning the inquest. There are other examples from 1888, examples from before the Nichols inquest and after it, and he calls himself "Lechmere then.

And that is kind of the exact thing I am saying: If he chose to for a single day "at the time" call himself Cross, that adds very much to the suspicions against him.

David Orsam has thoroughly dismissed the name nonsense. It’s over.

[Fisherman]

No. He used the name Cross at the inquest so clearly this was the name that he was using at the time. The ‘name thing’ is well and truly dead and buried. The funeral was presided over by David Orsam. I sent flowers.

The inquest presence on behalf of Lechmere was one day. On the other days, year in and year out, he called himself Lechmere on every occasion we have on record with the possible and likely exception of another case of violent death.

Since we have around a hundred examples of him using Lechmere and one or two - both in connection with violent death - it takes a very flawed sense of mathematics to claim that he was likeliest calling himself Cross. What we can do is to say - like you do that he called himself Cross "at the time". "The time", meaning the inquest. There are other examples from 1888, examples from before the Nichols inquest and after it, and he calls himself "Lechmere then.

And that is kind of the exact thing I am saying: If he chose to for a single day "at the time" call himself Cross, that adds very much to the suspicions against him.

[FrankO]

What I said Christer, was the first words spoken.
These were the local evening papers published directly after the first inquest session.
It's always important to know what came first, as there is so much copying from one paper to another.


Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
Echo, 3rd Oct.

Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."
Evening News, 3rd Oct.

Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there. Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed. Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street. The witness at the time was in the act of knocking a man up. Cross told him a policeman wanted him. He did not say anything about murder or suicide. It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately.
Star, 3rd Oct.

In addition to this, Jon, I'd say that there are two important details in the 8 different versions of Mizen's deposition.

From the Echo of 3 September: "Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there.""
From the Morning Advertiser & Evening Standard of 4 September: "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)."

To me, these are clear pointers that the sequence of what was said according to Mizen was:
1. You're wanted down there (said Lechmere in passing, while pointing to Buck's Row)
2. Mizen asked him what was the matter (his one & only question)
3. A policeman wants you; there's a woman lying there (replied Lechmere)

I don't think that the Echo saying that Mizen asked his only question was plucked out of thin air. Why would the Echo write that Mizen asked Lechmere what was the matter if he'd already told him the answer to that question? Doesn't make sense.

What does, in my view, is if Lechmere first said something like "You're wanted down there/in Buck's Row." and that with this minutest information Mizen then asked what was the matter and that Lechmere only then gave some more information. I don't think, btw, that Lechmere at any point said "A woman has been found there.", but that that was rather the way 1 reporter (from the Star of 3 Sept.) understood "there's a woman lying there." like that and that the second reporter (from the Times) just copied it into his piece a day later.

Cheers,
Frank

[Wickerman]

I think this may be a linguistic matter that isn't fully appreciated by anyone who didn't grow up or spend time around people who often use "want" colloquially when they mean "need".
Eastenders and "cockerneys" and mockneys even today say things like "You want to watch what you're doing, mate!"
or "You want to get down the Grey Horse! There's happy hour on day-old, warm, flat beer!"
or "He wanted a good kicking, so I gave him one"
or "Ref! You want to get to Specsavers, mate!"
(apologies to any genuine Eastenders for my shabby northern sterotyping of the Londoner... this is also still a very common use of want in Yorkshire, where I'm from. So feel free to kick back at me!)

"After" is another - as in, "That kid's after a good hiding", ..."wants a good hiding"....."needs a good hiding".

Being from Yorkshire mi'sen t'all looks s'ame t'me.

[A P Tomlinson]

isnt the main point though, that mizen claimed lech told him, not so much that he was wanted/ needed, but that there was already a policeman there. while i can see its minor point between wanted/needed (thanks AP, RJ and others for clearing that up) its not a minor point to say theres a policeman already there.

I think when you establish that the wording was neither unusual or necessarily misleading for someone like Lechmere to say (the phrasing of "you are wanted..." is NOT suspicious in and of itself, unless you need it to be), that it would have been far more likely for Mizen to misinterpret what was said, rather than Lechmere lying in front of Paul and relying on him missing the fairly important part of the conversation and not being suspicious. And then lying about it the other way in court before Paul had taken the stand. He took a big risk on them not double checking that.
If anyone may have had reason to lie, why not Mizen?
We only have his word that he didn't continue his side hustle of knocking on doors. He may have finished all the knocking he had on the whole street before making his way to Bucks Row.
The problem for the Lechmere theory is that equally plausible "What ifs" and tangential assumptions can work both ways.

Considering how so much weight is gathered behind the claim that Paul would have heard Charley ahead of him on Bucks Row, (and therefore he had to have been absolutely silent, and Paul did not testify to hearing him walking ahead, ergo he was murdering and mutilating a woman,) Paul's hearing suddenly becomes very questionable when it needs to be fallible in the case of NOT hearing Charley tell a stupid and obvious lie to Mizen. A completely pointless lie, because given how well his Master Plan paid off, leaving Mizen dismissing any thought of taking down his particulars... he turns up at the Inquest (and relatively quickly considering he so cleverly "avoided" giving his name and details to the police) and gives his ACTUAL address and place of employment... while "lying" about his name...
He must have been hoping really hard that no one who knows him will read it and go to the Police and say "You NEED to check that fellow out officer, he's been telling outrageous lies to you at that inquest!" His employers MUST have been made aware that one of Pickfords' own was participating in a murder enquiry. One of them HAD to have read one of the reports. All it would take is for any one of these people who know his "REAL" name to report him, and his well laid (if a little stupid) plan would crumble, and the cops would have their eye on him, and all because of a stupid, pointless lie.

[Abby Normal]

isnt the main point though, that mizen claimed lech told him, not so much that he was wanted/ needed, but that there was already a policeman there. while i can see its minor point between wanted/needed (thanks AP, RJ and others for clearing that up) its not a minor point to say theres a policeman already there.

[rjpalmer]

I think this may be a linguistic matter that isn't fully appreciated by anyone who didn't grow up or spend time around people who often use "want" colloquially when they mean "need".
Eastenders and "cockerneys" and mockneys even today say things like "You want to watch what you're doing, mate!"
or "You want to get down the Grey Horse! There's happy hour on day-old, warm, flat beer!"

Good post, A.P., and I agree.

What I suspect some of the earlier contributors missed is that, in this colloquial sense, there is no difference between 'want' and 'need.'

I came across a very obvious example of this in a 19th Century novel and I'll post the appropriate passage if I can find it again.

The context is that a social worker (a nurse) showed up unexpectedly at the house of a poor family.

The girl who answered the door recognized this nurse and said, "Oh miss, you're wanted upstairs, father is terribly sick!"

No one 'wanted' her--the father didn't even know the social worker was there, hadn't requested her presence, and had even refused her help on a previous occasion. Indeed, from the context, he certainly didn't want her.

The cockney child obviously meant the social worker was needed upstairs, due to the old man's precarious condition.

I suppose it's a tricky distinction that is difficult to wrap one's ears around, since the same figure of speech can mean 'wanted' (ie., requested) or 'needed' depending on who is saying it.

Mizen, if I recall, was from some village in Surrey, while Lechmere grew up in SGE, if that has any bearing on it. Cheers.

[A P Tomlinson]

But why would Lechmere then say that Mizen was wanted in Bucks Row, if he actually meant that he was needed there, Jon? Because, I would say, he added in the next sentence "a policeman wants you there". And is it not interesting that somebody should inform a PC that he was wanted in Bucks Row - without adding that he himself was the finder of the body? Why did he not just say "I found a woman lying in Bucks Row, you need to go there!"

Is it not strange that all of these matters always lend themselves to an accusation act against Lechmere, when there was always an exonerating alternative? Nichols could have been cold and long gone, Paul could have heard Lechmere, Nichols ´wounds could have been on display, Mizen and Lechmere could have agreed, Lechmeres working trek could have gone far away from the murders, he could have called himself Lechmere instead of Cross, the Goulston Street rag could have been found in Regents Park, and so on and so on.

Why is it that he always remains in the picture, that he gets no help whatsoever from the circumstances...?

Is it all a huge ... coincidence?

I think this may be a linguistic matter that isn't fully appreciated by anyone who didn't grow up or spend time around people who often use "want" colloquially when they mean "need".
Eastenders and "cockerneys" and mockneys even today say things like "You want to watch what you're doing, mate!"
or "You want to get down the Grey Horse! There's happy hour on day-old, warm, flat beer!"
or "He wanted a good kicking, so I gave him one"
or "Ref! You want to get to Specsavers, mate!"
(apologies to any genuine Eastenders for my shabby northern sterotyping of the Londoner... this is also still a very common use of want in Yorkshire, where I'm from. So feel free to kick back at me!)

Having thought about how I would react to finding something like that; if I was calling the police I'd probably say "You NEED to send someone round and look at this!" But if I were lucky enough to find a copper walking by (within a two town radius) I would probably say "I think you want to have a look at this over here..." and despite the obvious accusation that I'm just being contrarian... I can honestly say that I'm not sure why it would be different.
I can say with some assurance that if my mother in law were the one approaching the officer she would be VERY clear on EXACTLY what the constable NEEDED to do... in fine detail, and would follow them to make sure they did it, and would want to know why if they didn't!

So why, in any of those examples, would someone say "Want" or "wanted" instead of "need" or "needed"? Because that's how people often talk. Particulalry in places like the working class (and lower social) levels of the Victorian East End, (And modern Yorkshire).

Just go and look at the cartooon on page one. Why would the cartoonist who drew that character, put those words in her mouth?
Because THAT is how people spoke. (And often still DO.)

It's a minor issue of semantic pedantry that in no way suggests the man to be a liar

[Wickerman]

There is absolutely nothing to imply that the PC was mentioned last, Jon.

What I said Christer, was the first words spoken.
These were the local evening papers published directly after the first inquest session.
It's always important to know what came first, as there is so much copying from one paper to another.


Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there." Witness went there, and saw Constable Neil, who sent him to the station for the ambulance.
Echo, 3rd Oct.

Police-constable Mizen, of the H Division, said on Friday last, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker's-row, at the end of Campbell-street. A man who had the appearance of a carman passed him and said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row."
Evening News, 3rd Oct.

Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row. A man passing said to him, "You're wanted round in Buck's-row." That man was Carman Cross (who came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron), and he had come from Buck's-row. He said a woman had been found there. Witness went to the spot, found Policeman Neil there, and by his instruction witness went for the ambulance. He assisted in removing the body. He noticed blood running from the throat to the gutter. There was only one pool; it was somewhat congealed. Cross, when he spoke to witness about the affair, was accompanied by another man. Both went down Hanbury-street. The witness at the time was in the act of knocking a man up. Cross told him a policeman wanted him. He did not say anything about murder or suicide. It was not true that before he went to Buck's-row, witness continued "knocking people up." He went there immediately.
Star, 3rd Oct.











There are two reports that fail to mention him initially, but then returns a few lines further down, stating that Lechmere said that a Pc was in place. But the majority of the papers describe the sequence of events as Lechmere saying "A policeman wants you in Bucks Row - there is a woman on her back there".

Did Cross respond with that line because he didn't really want to be detained, he was late for work as it was? Cross just wanted to get to work, but now the constable wanted him to stop and talk, so Cross is thinking to say something to make the constable hurry away.
I really don't know, but what I do know is that there is nothing suspicious in what we read.

Why do you call him Cross? His name was Lechmere. Anyhow, it seems you are now suggesting that Lechmere did mention a PC, but with the intent of being able to proceed to work. Okay. That too is a possibility, but it does not take away from how we know there was a disagreement about the matter, and such a disagreement adds to the material in a way that any prosecutor would love.

Cross denied mentioning a constable because he realised the excuse he came up with could lead to further complications.

How could he be certain that the PC would n ot protest vehemently? How could he be sure that Paul would not give hinm away, if he was close enough to hear it? It would be a very great risk, and taking it would potentially end him up in the interrogation room - or at a much worse venue. I am not saying that you cannot be correct, but it is a suggestion that has its limits, I feel.

Then there is the issue of how PC Neil was able to see PC Mizen from the position of the body in Bucks Row.
We can see from the diagram that if Neil walked over to Essex Wharf he had a better chance of seeing Mizen.
The testimony appears to suggest PC Neil first called the constable on patrol from Brady St., and noticed PZ Mizen in Bucks Row. Except Neil worded it in such a way that he could have been on the Essex Wharf side of Bucks Row when he saw Mizen's lamp in the distance.

PC Neil: "...and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance. The doctor arrived in a very short time. I had, in the meantime, rung the bell at Essex Wharf, and asked if any disturbance had been heard."

He says "in the mean time", which suggests to me he did cross the road before he saw Mizen, otherwise I would expect him to say "after that".
So, between calling PC Thain and seeing PC Mizen's lamp, he had crossed over to Essex Wharf.

There's nothing suspicious here, everything we read is normal and innocent.

I disagree about the mount in time that he crossed over to Essex Wharf. But the only thing that is of importance here is whether or not Mizen MUST have been in Bakers Row as his lantern was observed by Neil. And I think we must allow for the option that he was actually Bucks Row then.[/QUOTE]