Pickford & Co.

[Geddy2112]

Interesting point regarding my initial post. A similar discussion about routes to work etc being important for the Lechmere team is happening on FB. Lechmere apparently is the only suspect with links to the murder sites. I bailed at that point. Define link. Apparently walking through Hanbury Street on the morning after Polly's murder is considered a link. I tried to explain just because we do not know of such links does not mean they did not happy. However walking along a street a week before a murder does not make you a murderer. I for one have done it, in fact a few hours before a murder I was actually at the murder scene talking to the victim. However since I directly asked a similar Q to here, i.e. are we 100% sure Lechmere worked for Pickfords since it only seems to be his testimony this is mentioned I got an odd reply from Ed..

'If he lied and didn't work for Pickfords, then although his route to work wouldn't pass the Tabram, Kelly and Mackenzie crime scenes, his overall testimony would be 100 times (conservatively) more incriminating.'

Ed has always come across as being more 'reasoned' than Christer but there seems to be some doubt in this quote. Granted I gave them little wriggle room saying it was unsafe to believe Lechmere on the first line of his testimony but not other parts. Apparently good liars only lie when it suits so okay. Not buying it, how do we know the quality of Lechmere's lying. Anyway I digress but it looks as Ed is open to the suggestion that the only place it's mentioned is in his Testimony, which is what I was hoping because like I said I think it's unsafe to half believe or cherry pick a statement unless there is collaboration (this point there is not.) I mean there is collaboration on some parts of his testimony that they do not believe as well.

I did not ask why he considers his testimony would be 100 times more incriminating if he lied about working for Pickfords though. I mean if he did not work for Pickfords their show is over.

[Herlock Sholmes]

curious about your interpretation of a particular event, open to anyone with an opinion.

at the inquest, mizen states the man [Cross] appeared to be a carman AND THEN Cross was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question.

my curiosity being,
Is this the first time that Mizen is seeing Cross (after the morning of Polly Nicholls’ murder)?

{or, another possibility, is sometime the morning of the inquest (possibly right before the inquest started) the first time that Mizen is seeing Cross?}

my confusion being,
Why the need for identification?

if baxter had called Cross beforehand, mizen would merely have had to say, “yeah, the last bloke was the one who walked up on me”

…

If this IS the first time Mizen is seeing Cross, it might lend itself to an assertion that Cross made himself known THAT morning of the inquest - September 3rd.

…

my thoughts are being random with this matter, my apologies, trying to string together a cohesive narrative

…

after all, was mizen really needed at the inquest IF it hadn’t been for Paul & Cross “making an appearance” AFTER the murder?

to the former [Paul], the coroner is seemingly [using] mizen to make a rebuttal to Paul’s appearance in Lloyd’s on September 2nd, to state that he did NOT (as claimed by Paul) continue his duties of knocking up AFTER being alerted by Paul & Cross.

to the latter [Cross], was baxter told by the morning of the inquest [something to the effect of]: “the carman (Cross) made himself known this morning AND we can make available the contable (Mizen) to corroborate his story?

without paul & cross being known, what more would mizen have provided to the jury other than he went for the ambulance… that hardly seems relevant to be called up by baxter in the first place

I’ve only looked at The Times and Telegraph versions of the trial today Robert but they don’t specifically mention Mizen identifying Cross at the inquest. As you say though, Mizen could have confirmed Cross as the man that he’d spoken too before the ID began. If Cross had turned up at the station after work on Saturday maybe Mizen was out on duty at the time or at home which meant that he couldn’t ID him at the time.

[Robert St Devil]

.

The Morning Advertiser and one of the Evening papers (i believe) provided the following:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

….

It just seems random to me BECAUSE Mizen wasn’t called to the inquest to identify Paul. If we knew what prompted Baxter to call upon Mizen on September 3rd, we might be able to deduce when Cross made himself known.

As an aside, ive ALSO considered that the police went looking for a carman SINCE that was what Mizen claims the man (Cross) appeared to be.

[Geddy2112]

The Morning Advertiser and one of the Evening papers (i believe) provided the following:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

Crikey, now that is a time gap

[A P Tomlinson]

The Morning Advertiser and one of the Evening papers (i believe) provided the following:

Police constable George Maizen (sic), 55 H, said - On Friday morning last, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when someone who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row). The man appeared to be a carman. (The man, whose name is George Cross, was brought in and witness identified him as the man who spoke to him on the morning in question). I went up Buck's row and saw a policeman shining his light on the pavement. He said, "Go for an ambulance," and I at once went to the station and returned with it. I assisted to remove the body. The blood appeared fresh, and was still running from the neck of the woman.

….

It just seems random to me BECAUSE Mizen wasn’t called to the inquest to identify Paul. If we knew what prompted Baxter to call upon Mizen on September 3rd, we might be able to deduce when Cross made himself known.

As an aside, ive ALSO considered that the police went looking for a carman SINCE that was what Mizen claims the man (Cross) appeared to be.

I imagine he was called because on the Saturday Neil had told Baxter and the inquest that HE had discovered the body, yet the next day a newspaper report claimed two carmen had found the body before Neil had arrived on site, and had also told a police officer about it.
I don't imagine Wynne Baxter was very happy with that.
He surely must have wanted that clarifying, and probably chewed a few ears over why the detectives in charge didn't know on Saturday that another copper had spoken to two men just after the murder on the Friday, and it not been a key factor in the first day of the inquest that these men should be tracked down and identified.

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi Geddy,

You’re not slow, it’s just that I’ve written a piece of utter drivel. What the hell was I thinking when I wrote that? I think that what I was trying to say was that Cross didn’t have to wait until Lloyd’s came out to find out that Paul had spoken to the Press or the police because he would have already considered the possibility.

I think the simplest explanation is that he would have heard about A murder while at work on the Friday and Saturday, put two and two together on the Sunday when it becomes clear that it was the woman he had seen in Bucks Row. Then gone in to the station to say "I'm the other man in that story" and been told to attend the inquest on Monday. There is every chance that they would have needed to track down the officer he spoke to, (or may have been in the process of doing so after the newspaper came out,) to get the story straight.
Of course he may have been civic minded enough to make that step late on the Saturday after he was home from work, but I think it just as likely that he would have simply wanted his supper and bed, and "...bugger it, I'll do it in the morning!"

I maintain that Abberline and the other detectives would have never sent PC Neil to testify in front of Wynne Baxter on the Saturday to being the one who first discovered the body, if they had known at any point prior to the hearing that two other men had found it first. All of which, to my mind, suggests very strongly that Mizen didn't tell them about it prior to the press report coming out on the Sunday.
Either that or he reported it to H Div, and no one passed the information on to Abberline and J Div.
Mizen's testimony on the Monday being immediately prior to Cross reeks of damage limitation.

[rjpalmer]

I maintain that Abberline and the other detectives would have never sent PC Neil to testify in front of Wynne Baxter on the Saturday to being the one who first discovered the body, if they had known at any point prior to the hearing that two other men had found it first. All of which, to my mind, suggests very strongly that Mizen didn't tell them about it prior to the press report coming out on the Sunday.
Either that or he reported it to H Div, and no one passed the information on to Abberline and J Div.
Mizen's testimony on the Monday being immediately prior to Cross reeks of damage limitation.

That's Ed Stow's analysis, as well.

Stow also refers to an interview Helson gave to the press on Sunday, 2 September (referred to in the Daily News, 3 September, but not quoted verbatim) which doesn't mention the two carmen, nor contradict the belief that PC Neil discovered the body. This, to his way of thinking, shows that the knowledge of the carmen Cross and Paul was limited to PC Mizen only--even some 48 hours after-the-fact.

I'm skeptical, however, that Mizen didn't have an explanation for abandoning his beat, and nobody in J-Division, and nobody in H-Division, nor even Inspector Abberline thought to question why Mizen was on J-Division's turf and had fetched the police ambulance.

The Daily News article, after referring to Helson's interview, states that PC Neil had been "severely questioned as to the "working of his "beat" on that night."

Would no one have also severely questioned PC Mizen as to his own movements and rationale for leaving his beat?

I suggested to Ed that Helson knew of the two carmen but didn't mention it to the press on the Sunday, as Cross and Paul were still being traced and/or questioned. He scoffed, asking what evidence I had that Helson, or the police, would engage in such a "subterfuge."

Subterfuge seems a little overly melodramatic. The police not telling the press all that they know is commonplace, nor was it a lie that PC Neil had discovered the murdered woman.

It was merely a mild sin of omission, utterly understandable if the two men--or at least one of the two men--were still being traced and/or questioned.

[Robert St Devil]

I imagine he was called because on the Saturday Neil had told Baxter and the inquest that HE had discovered the body...

a commendable post A P; and i agree, Cross would have been a Day One inquest witness IF baxter knew about him before the start of the inquest.

If i may…

The Evening Standard of September 4th reports the following exchange between Coroner Baxter and Charles Cross:

The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil about?

Witness - No, I did not see any one at all, except the constable I spoke to.

My question being,

how did Charles Cross know who PC Neil was? How did he know PC Neil was an entirely different constable from PC Mizen?

I mean, if Cross showed up spontaneously on Day Two of the inquest, he shouldn’t have known a Neil from a Mizen from a Abberline from a Warren. But here he is stating that he didn’t see PC Neil BUT RATHER it was some other constable (Mizen).

An obvious question would be, was PC Neil in attendance that 2nd day of the inquest? Then I could possibly see someone official asking Cross (prior to the onset of the inquest), “This is PC Neil, is this the constable you spoke with that morning?”

If PC Neil wasn’t in attendance on Day Two, id be more inclined to believe that Cross was brought before PC Neil sometime between Saturday evening or Sunday.

[Herlock Sholmes]

a commendable post A P; and i agree, Cross would have been a Day One inquest witness IF baxter knew about him before the start of the inquest.

If i may…

The Evening Standard of September 4th reports the following exchange between Coroner Baxter and Charles Cross:

The Coroner - Did you see Police constable Neil about?

Witness - No, I did not see any one at all, except the constable I spoke to.

My question being,

how did Charles Cross know who PC Neil was? How did he know PC Neil was an entirely different constable from PC Mizen?

I mean, if Cross showed up spontaneously on Day Two of the inquest, he shouldn’t have known a Neil from a Mizen from a Abberline from a Warren. But here he is stating that he didn’t see PC Neil BUT RATHER it was some other constable (Mizen).

An obvious question would be, was PC Neil in attendance that 2nd day of the inquest? Then I could possibly see someone official asking Cross (prior to the onset of the inquest), “This is PC Neil, is this the constable you spoke with that morning?”

If PC Neil wasn’t in attendance on Day Two, id be more inclined to believe that Cross was brought before PC Neil sometime between Saturday evening or Sunday.

I can’t be certain that I’m remembering this correctly Robert, so I hope that someone will correct me if that’s the case, but I seem to remember someone (and something is telling me that it might have been Neil Bell) that the police only tended to send one PC per day to an inquest to ensure that it affected their coverage of the beats as little as possible and when I see from the Nichols inquest that Neil, Mizen and Thain all testified on different days it seems to strengthen the point.

[Robert St Devil]

I can’t be certain that I’m remembering this correctly Robert, so I hope that someone will correct me if that’s the case, but I seem to remember someone (and something is telling me that it might have been Neil Bell) that the police only tended to send one PC per day to an inquest to ensure that it affected their coverage of the beats as little as possible and when I see from the Nichols inquest that Neil, Mizen and Thain all testified on different days it seems to strengthen the point.

Would it have mattered if the PC were from different divisions?

Awesome insight Herlock!

IF it is true, it would mean that Cross did NOT simply “show up” to the inquest last-minute BECAUSE, logically speaking, he had been made known of PC Neil prior to the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would it have mattered if the PC were from different divisions?

Awesome insight Herlock!

IF it is true, it would mean that Cross did NOT simply “show up” to the inquest last-minute BECAUSE, logically speaking, he had been made known of PC Neil prior to the inquest.

Robert, it’s probably because I’m at a barbecue and there’s alcohol here, but could you explain your thinking behind that please. Apologies if I’m being slow…I blame a guy called Jack Daniel’s.

[Robert St Devil]

Robert, it’s probably because I’m at a barbecue and there’s alcohol here, but could you explain your thinking behind that please. Apologies if I’m being slow…I blame a guy called Jack Daniel’s.

Haha no worries, ive met him a time or two…

okay… simple style

At the inquest, baxter asks cross if he saw PC Neil about [the scene of the murder].

cross answers no… definitively no.

this answer means that Charles Cross knows who PC Neil is. If PC Neil were at the inquest, Cross could point him put IF need be.

[it would be like someone asking me, did you see Herlock at the barbecue & i answered No. there is an automatic assumption that i know who you are, i could point you out ]

back to Cross & Neil…

This begs the question, how does Charles Cross know PC Neil? When did he meet him?

you posted that there was a strong possibility that PC Neil was NOT at the September 3rd inquest.

that means that Charles Cross must have encountered PC Neil before the September 3rd inquest. Was it Saturday, Sunday,…?

[Robert St Devil]

For anyone NOT following my logic, allow me to elaborate. The bold print is what was actually stated at the inquest; the rest of the dialogue is intended to flush out a possibility which derives from the bold print:

Coroner Baxter: Did you see Police constable Neil [at the scene of the murder]?

Cross/Lechmere: No, I did not see any one at all, except the constable I spoke to.

Baxter: Did you know PC Neil prior to arriving upon the murdered woman?

Cross: No i did not

Baxter: Did you know PC Neil upon arriving upon the murdered woman?

Cross: No i did not

Baxter: Then how do know that PC Neil wasn’t at the scene of the crime IF you had never met PC Neil before? How would you know who PC Neil IS in the first place?

Cross: Because i have met him since that time.

Baxter: You have?! He’s not here at the inquest today.

Cross: i didn’t meet him at today’s inquest, i met him prior to the inquest. I went into the police station to report that i had found the dead woman on Buck’s Row. I told them how myself and another carman had directed a constable to the scene of the murder. The police official said that I must be talking about PC Neil because he was the one who found her body on Buck’s Row. When they brought PC Neil into the office, i didn’t recognize him as the constable who we had spoken with that morning. I told the official on which street we had stopped and spoken with the constable. That constable was the one who appeared today before me.

Baxter: PC Mizen?

Cross: if that’s who you say he is, then yes… him

[Fiver]

without paul & cross being known, what more would mizen have provided to the jury other than he went for the ambulance… that hardly seems relevant to be called up by baxter in the first place

I suspect it that having Mizen identify Cross was to ensure that Cross was the person who had found the body, instead of just some publicity seeker.

But I may be reading the much into it. They had Patrick Mulshaw identify PC Neil.

[Fiver]

This begs the question, how does Charles Cross know PC Neil? When did he meet him?

you posted that there was a strong possibility that PC Neil was NOT at the September 3rd inquest.

that means that Charles Cross must have encountered PC Neil before the September 3rd inquest. Was it Saturday, Sunday,…?

One possibility would be that Cross had encountered PC Neil while walking to work on some previous morning.