Pickford & Co.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Newbie]

The other Charles Cross, carman, mentioned in the 1881 Census lived at 9 Walcot Square, Lambeth, south of the river, but I found his marriage records and he lived in Poplar at the time of his marriage, May 1879. (No specific address). There is no indication for whom he worked.

There was also a third Charles Cross, carman, aged 18 in 1879, so he is not a great fit.

The man in the accident was probably "our" Charles Cross, but (in my opinion) this is a blow to the Lechmere theory, because it shows what many expected all along: he had joined Pickford's during his stepfather's lifetime and simply used the name "Charles Cross" at work, just as it was recorded in the 1861 census. These things "stick," so there was nothing nefarious about his use of the name.

If on the other hand, this isn't Cross, it's still a blow to the Lechmere theory, because advocates like to imply that the road accident is evidence of a violent, callous man. In reality, two children were involved. One saw the van coming, the other didn't. The jury ruled it was a no-fault accident.

No blow at all.

He was known as Charles Cross to Pickford administration, since he started employment with that name.
He assumed the name of his step dad, out of convention ...... and when his step dad died soon after,
or after he married, he changed his name back to Lechmere.

Probably a sign that he wasn't that close to his step dad.
Many step children maintain their step fathers surname.


He used the services of Pickford legal advisors to aid him; hence, the name Charles Cross was entered in court.

As for his blamelessness, your description makes me wonder. How about Lechmere seeing the two children? That was his responsibility - no?
It wasn't one kid diving in front of his cart, it was a matter of two kids - with one having to dive out of the way.

He had legal counsel, and worked for a large established business; the poor deceased east end kid had no representation.

That impresses people.

[Newbie]

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.

Paul ran into the reporter while returning from work that Friday afternoon.
He hadn't read any accounts of the incident, he wasn't sure if a murder took place, ..... he didn't know much of anything.

There were various people, if I remember correctly, stopping pedestrian to see who knew what.
Lech, evaded questions, or was neither approached, nor evinced interest, or went a different route home.
Some have speculated that he chose option three.

After Paul gave his story, whether he put 'two and two together' or not, he tried to stay out of the process.
Authorities had to drag him to the inquest.