Pickford & Co.

[A P Tomlinson]

Thomas Cross died in 1869. Jonas Mizen joined the force in 1873. John Neil joined the force in 1875. So if he had crossed paths with either of the PCs, it wasn't becuase of his stepfather.

I don't think it likely that he knew them at all.
I was thinking along the lines of Police Benevolent type events, sort of "Widows and Orphans Fund" Christmas Party or the like.
But I don't even know whether "Old Ma Lechmere" collected a widows pension or not.

[Fiver]

There's every chance what with his stepfather having been a copper that he may have at some point in his life crossed paths with them, but I still think the simplest answer is that using the logic of "There was no copper in Bucks Row," and "PC Mizen testified immediately before him, and identified him," answers the question of how did he know he hadn't seen PC Neil.
And to be fair, Baxter was no dope, if that statement had required clarification he would have asked for it.

Thomas Cross died in 1869. Jonas Mizen joined the force in 1873. John Neil joined the force in 1875. So if he had crossed paths with either of the PCs, it wasn't becuase of his stepfather.

[rjpalmer]

Probably just as surprised as Wynne Baxter and the Detectives were to read Pauls story on the Sunday...

I can see why people would draw that conclusion, and I used to think along similar lines, but it no longer makes any sense to me.

Paul's initial absence from the inquest seems strange, but then so does Matthew Packer's and Israel Schwartz's, and the police knew of them early on.

I think something else was going on. I can't accept Ed Stow's theory that the police didn't track down Paul until after the Chapman murder.

[A P Tomlinson]

The whole point of Robert Paul’s complaint to the press is that Mizen didn’t seem particularly eager to rush off to Buck’s Row, and as far as he knew, Mizen never did.

So, in reading any newspaper on Friday or Saturday, Paul and Cross must have been surprised to find that their encounter with Mizen was nowhere mentioned and it was instead reported that the beat constable PC Neil had found Nichols. They would have put two and two together. Indeed, Paul did put two and two together.

Probably just as surprised as Wynne Baxter and the Detectives were to read Pauls story on the Sunday...

[A P Tomlinson]

rjpalmer mentioned in post #36 how some ripperologists cite the Coroners Act as a means of a witness attending the inquest without formal summons. I was inclined to think that IF Cross knew of these constables beforehand, then it was less likely that he simply showed-up that monday morning ready to tell what he saw.

There's every chance what with his stepfather having been a copper that he may have at some point in his life crossed paths with them, but I still think the simplest answer is that using the logic of "There was no copper in Bucks Row," and "PC Mizen testified immediately before him, and identified him," answers the question of how did he know he hadn't seen PC Neil.
And to be fair, Baxter was no dope, if that statement had required clarification he would have asked for it.

[rjpalmer]

Thus, Robert Paul knew as early as Friday night that a different policeman than the one they spoke to had found the body.

The whole point of Robert Paul’s complaint to the press is that Mizen didn’t seem particularly eager to rush off to Buck’s Row, and as far as he knew, Mizen never did.

So, in reading any newspaper on Friday or Saturday, Paul and Cross must have been surprised to find that their encounter with Mizen was nowhere mentioned and it was instead reported that the beat constable PC Neil had found Nichols. They would have put two and two together. Indeed, Paul did put two and two together.

[rjpalmer]

Neither Robert Paul’s account nor PC Neil’s inquest statement in Lloyd’s of September 2nd shed any light on the fact that PC Neil was NOT the constable who they had spoke to. If Paul or Lechmere had read this Lloyd’s edition, there’s every possibility that they thought that it was PC Neil who they had met based on his statement.

Hi Robert,

Actually, Llyod's of September 2nd does mention Mizen and Thain being different constables, but it's not part of the usual quote from Robert Paul that people usually discuss. It's in another section of the same paper.

"Despite the policeman's assertion that he was the first to discover the body, Mr. Paul last night repeated the statement made to our representative on Friday evening that he and another man found the corpse long before the police. He says the policeman he spoke to was not belonging to that beat. Every word he had said was true."

Thus, Robert Paul knew as early as Friday night that a different policeman than the one they spoke to had found the body.

[Elamarna]

Apologies Steve, i’ve let my BNA subscription lapse these past years.

But i have read (most) those articles which you mentioned, here, on Casebook… and, i gotta say, if i was Lechmere, there’s nothing in those articles that would definitively indicate that Neil was NOT the constable who he spoke with that morning. Most of the newspapers only go on to report THAT the constable walked down Buck’s Row and discovered the body of a woman… which is what Lechmere would have expected to read IF he was so inclined to read the newspapers of the 31st and 1st; might have expected ‘the constable who he spoke with’ to do that very thing - walk down Bucks-Row and discover a body after he finished his knocking-up; may have concluded that the constables name was Neil; may not have expected that his brief dialogue with ‘the constable who was knocking people up’ was necessary to the news-article.


Neither Robert Paul’s account nor PC Neil’s inquest statement in Lloyd’s of September 2nd shed any light on the fact that PC Neil was NOT the constable who they had spoke to. If Paul or Lechmere had read this Lloyd’s edition, there’s every possibility that they thought that it was PC Neil who they had met based on his statement.

When Mizen was called back to confirm that Lechmere was one of the two carmen, I suggests it's inconceivable that his name was not mentioned by Baxter, indeed, it think it would be a requirement .

That none of the reports mention the meeting at the junction, might well be read as this being a different officer, to the one who was met, but of course that's just an assumption.

And of course, the other possibility is not that Lechmere knew Neil, but that he knew Mizen, at least by sight.
I raised this possibility in an earlier edition of Inside Bucks Row.
If , it's a big if, Lechmere normally walked along either Hanbury or Old Montague, its very possible that he had seen Mizen on his beat previously.

All speculation of course

Steve

[Robert St Devil]

This may help clarify.

Neil's testimony appeared in several evening papers on 1st.

Certainly in the Evening Post and the Globe.


In addition the Evening Post, Star, Evening News all carry an account of his discovery on 31st
This account naming Neil, also appears in The Daily News , East London Advertiser, East London Observer, Evening News, Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser, Pall Mall Gazette and the Times on 1st.

Steve

Apologies Steve, i’ve let my BNA subscription lapse these past years.

But i have read (most) those articles which you mentioned, here, on Casebook… and, i gotta say, if i was Lechmere, there’s nothing in those articles that would definitively indicate that Neil was NOT the constable who he spoke with that morning. Most of the newspapers only go on to report THAT the constable walked down Buck’s Row and discovered the body of a woman… which is what Lechmere would have expected to read IF he was so inclined to read the newspapers of the 31st and 1st; might have expected ‘the constable who he spoke with’ to do that very thing - walk down Bucks-Row and discover a body after he finished his knocking-up; may have concluded that the constables name was Neil; may not have expected that his brief dialogue with ‘the constable who was knocking people up’ was necessary to the news-article.


Neither Robert Paul’s account nor PC Neil’s inquest statement in Lloyd’s of September 2nd shed any light on the fact that PC Neil was NOT the constable who they had spoke to. If Paul or Lechmere had read this Lloyd’s edition, there’s every possibility that they thought that it was PC Neil who they had met based on his statement.

[Elamarna]

I see people have been asking, how did Lechmere know the policeman he met at the junction was NOT PC Neil, well we have the possibility that Mizen was named when he was asked to identify Lechmere.
Some have asked, did Lechmere know Neil, the other possibility of course is did Lechmere know Mizen, at least by sight?
Steve

[Elamarna]

I can’t account for all the newspapers HOWEVER Neil’s testimony only appears in one paper over the weekend that I’ve seen: Lloyd’s of September 2nd. His testimony won’t be reported in all the newspapers until Monday September 3rd, the day that Cross is attending the inquest.

And even if Cross had read Lloyd’s, there’s nothing in Neil’s testimony to truly indicate that he wasn’t the constable that Cross had spoken with. Neil states that he was walking his beat and he came across a dead woman; for all Cross would have known, Neil could have been the constable that he spoke with AND he’s simply testifying from the part where he found the dead woman and overlooking the part where he talked to two carmen.

This may help clarify.

Neil's testimony appeared in several evening papers on 1st.

Certainly in the Evening Post and the Globe.


In addition the Evening Post, Star, Evening News all carry an account of his discovery on 31st
This account naming Neil, also appears in The Daily News , East London Advertiser, East London Observer, Evening News, Evening Standard, Morning Advertiser, Pall Mall Gazette and the Times on 1st.

Steve

[rjpalmer]

rjpalmer mentioned in post #36 how some ripperologists cite the Coroners Act as a means of a witness attending the inquest without formal summons. I was inclined to think that IF Cross knew of these constables beforehand, then it was less likely that he simply showed-up that monday morning ready to tell what he saw.

Just dropping by and noticed your post.

Some previous debate about the possibility of a witness 'simply showing up' can be found at the following link, posts 47-54:

Full notes on Charles Cross/Lechmere - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums

[Robert St Devil]

I don't think anyone suggested he just rocked up and joined in at the inquest.

rjpalmer mentioned in post #36 how some ripperologists cite the Coroners Act as a means of a witness attending the inquest without formal summons. I was inclined to think that IF Cross knew of these constables beforehand, then it was less likely that he simply showed-up that monday morning ready to tell what he saw.

[Robert St Devil]

Putting it altogether, PC Mizen specifically named PC Neil by name at the end of his deposition. [Cross would have been brought in after Mizen deposed about seeing the carmen in Baker's Row]. Unless Cross was hustled back out of the room, he would have heard this exchange about Neil and known the context of why he was being discussed--not that that was absolutely necessary. Nor do I think there would have been any reason for there to have been a cloak of secrecy over Mizen's identity when Cross was brought in to be identified.

*************

My opinion RJ is that the Daily Telegraph’s account of the inquest is a conflation of names, occurrences, etc. on the part of the journalist SO as to round out the narrative for the reader.

i favor the Evening Standard for actual accuracy because it seems less as though it is trying to pull the story together AND moreso writing it as it happened. for example:

the daily telegraph:
he was at the crossing, Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row

the evening standard:
I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one who was passing said, "You're wanted down there" (pointing to Buck's row).

*** the evening standard was sourcing from someone who was in attendance at the inquest AND saw Mizen physically point at Buck’s Row ***

another example…

the daily telegraph:
When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance

the evening standard:
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

*** it seems like the Daily Telegraph is taking the liberty of filling in the name of the constable (PC Neil) for their readers so as to tie it back to the previous day’s edition where they reported PC Neil’s statement. ***


piecing together The Evening Standard, the Daily News, the Times, the Star, Illustrated Police News, and Lloyd’s in a manner that is NOT done haphazardly, this is how i think the inquest occured:

Police constable George Maizen [sic] 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one 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 [Charles] Cross came into the Court-room in a coarse sacking apron and the 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. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

The Coroner - There was another man in company with Cross?

The Witness - Yes. I think he was also a carman. both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed.

A juryman - Did you continue knocking people up after Cross told you you were wanted?

Witness - No. I only finished knocking up one person 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.


Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said on Friday morning I left home at half past three. I went down Parson street, crossed Brady street, and through Buck's row. I was alone. As I got up Buck's row I saw something lying on the north side in the gateway to a wool warehouse. It looked to me like a man's tarpaulin, but on going into the centre of the road I saw it was the figure of a woman. At this time he heard a man--about forty yards off--approaching from the direction that witness had himself come from. He waited for the man, who started on one side, as if afraid that witness meant to knock him down. When he came up, I said, "Come and look over here; there is a woman." We then both went over to the body. I bent over her head, and touched her hand, which was cold. Then he touched her face, which felt warm. I said, "She is dead." The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, Yes, she is."{Or, "I think she's breathing, but very little."} he then suggested that we should shift her, but I said, "No, let us go and tell a policeman." When I found her clothes were up above her knees, the other man tried to pull them over her, but they did not seem as if they would come down. Her bonnet was off, but close to her head. I did not notice any blood.

The Coroner - Did you not see that her throat was cut?

Witness - No; it was very dark at the time. We left together and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable. I said to him, "There is a woman in Buck's row on the broad of her back. She is dead or else drunk." The other man said, "I believe she's dead." The constable replied "All right." The other man left witness at the corner of Hanbury-street and turned into Corbett's court. He appeared to be a carman, and was a stranger to the witness.

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. I don't think I met anybody, after I left my house till I got to the body.

Further questions follow to which Cross replies - In his opinion deceased looked as if she had been outraged and gone off in a swoon; but he had no idea that there were any serious injuries.

The Coroner: Did the other man tell you who he was?

Witness: No, sir; he merely said that he would have fetched a policeman, only he was behind time. I was behind time myself. At the time he did not think the woman had been murdered. Witness did not hear any sounds of a vehicle, and believed that had any one left the body after he got into Buck's-row he must have heard him.

A Juryman: Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?

Witness: No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row.


*** AEMO ***

[A P Tomlinson]

did he though?

i realize that i’m going to have to file this assertion under “My Own Suspicions” A P HOWEVER for the sake of responding to your message…

The Evening Standard of 4 September has the following:

Police constable George Maizen, 55H, said - On Friday morning, at 20 minutes past four, I was at the end of Hanbury street, Baker's row, when some one 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 the 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.


SO

it does not appear that Cross was in the inquest room when PC Mizen was brought forward, was not in the room to hear PC Mizen state his name, was not in the room to hear the first part of PC Mizen’s statement,…

IN FACT

There’s a possibility that Cross did not know PC Mizen’s name because he only refers to him as “the constable i spoke to” during his inquest statement (which directly follows PC Mizen):

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


And there’s a good possibility that PC Mizen doesn’t know Cross’ name because in his statement, Mizen refers to him as “some one” and as “a man appeared to be a carman” SO there is high likelihood that neither man had been made known to each other prior to the inquest.

************

The point of my assertion being: if Cross knows who PC Neil is BUT has no idea who PC Mizen is, then there’s a strong possibility that Cross met PC Neil long before the start of Day Two of the inquest, which means… Cross did not simply show-up on the morning of the inquest

I don't think anyone suggested he just rocked up and joined in at the inquest.
I know I can't prove it in this particular instance with quotes, but usually one has to be callled to testify at an inquest or at least be placed on the list of witnesses due to appear by someone who knows who you are and why you are there.
He would have had to get time off work at very short notice, and I can't see that happening without some sort of summons or at least talking to the police beforehand.

The most likely situation is that either late on Saturday or through the Sunday paper, he learned that the murder everyone was talking about, was the woman he had seen in Bucks Row, and took a walk to the station on Sunday and presented himself as the "Other Man" mentioned in the story.
Now, whether he went to H Division or J Division to make his statement would help determine if he HAD seen or met either Mizen or Neil before the Monday, but neither would likely to have just been around the station during the day on Sunday having been on nights on the Thursday/Friday.

If one of the Inspectors were present, a swift runner may have been sent to rouse Mizen to come and identify the man as one of those mentioned in the paper, it would not be surprising at all if Mizen, and/or Neil hadn't already been dragged in on Sunday morning to account for the newspaper story that contradicted the Police statement of events to the inquest on Saturday. In fact I can't see asituation where the Detectives in charge wouldn;t have done that as soon as they read the paper or had the matter of Robert Paul brought to their attention.

At some point in the proceedings the police, (being... The Police) would have required Mizen to identify him so that they didnt just put a random loon in the witness box.

He'll have given his name and address long before taking the stand, because that was Police procedure, and either been told by a detective when he first appeared at the station, to appear at the inquest the following day, (so that they can get ahead of the whole "Who ACTUALLY found the body" mess before Baxter starts chewing people up,) or gets a knock on the door later that day from a copper with a summons that he can show to Pickfords in the morning to get a couple of hours off.

Part of what would have happened prior to him taking the stand would have been the Police knowing what he was going to say so that Mizen didn't go up there first and make a complete arse of himself.
If they didn't have a good idea of what Cross was going to say, then only a seriously deficient, and frankly simple-minded, detective would have allowed Mizen to go up there first and not knowing what he was going to say would mean they hadn't questioned him andin that case why is he even being allowed to testify?
He would have been questioned before taking the stand.
That's how the police decided which of the many people they spoke to during their investigation should appear at the inquest.