Pickford & Co.

[drstrange169]

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

Cross knew Mizen wasn't Neil because he was specifically brought into the inquest prior to his testimony for Mizen to identify him. No mystery there.

[Robert St Devil]

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

Cross knew Mizen wasn't Neil because he was specifically brought into the inquest prior to his testimony for Mizen to identify him. No mystery there.

That explains mizen, that doesn’t explain neil

actually that doesnt explain mizen because we never know IF baxter tells cross who mizen is SINCE baxter brought cross into the room halfway through mizen’s statement

[drstrange169]

Since he only saw one policeman, he knew every other police was not the one he saw. Neil had given evidence the Saturday before, his testimony was reported in all the newspapers.

[Robert St Devil]

Neil had given evidence the Saturday before, his testimony was reported in all the newspapers.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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,…?

Hi Robert,

‘Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row.‘

I’d suggest that he hadn’t been asked specifically about Neil, just whether he’d seen an officer. Maybe a fuller (hypothetical) response from Cross (if he had been asked specifically about Neil) might have been..

”I’m certain that I didn’t see Constable Neil in Buck’s Row because I never saw any Constable in Buck’s Row.”

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

‘Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row.‘

I’d suggest that he hadn’t been asked specifically about Neil, just whether he’d seen an officer. Maybe a fuller (hypothetical) response from Cross (if he had been asked specifically about Neil) might have been..

buenos dias Herlock, how went your conversation with Mr. Jack “The Ripper” Daniels at the barbecue yesterday?

in reply to your post (appreciated btw),

yes indeed… Cross was specifically asked by Baxter if he had seen PC Neil.

…..
From the Evening Standard, 4 September 1888:

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said on Friday morning I left home at half past three… {etcetera}

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

Witness - No; it was very dark at the time… {etcetera}

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.
…..

now if Cross had answered…

“who the devil is PC Neil??”, or

”I don’t know any PC Neil, was he the previous constable you just now spoke with, the one who identified me here today?”, or

”is PC Neil the one in Church-row, the one me & that other carman spoke with? apologies, we didn’t take down that constable’s name, was running late for work that morning”

…i would be inclined to think that Cross had no foreknowledge of who PC Neil was going into the inquest HOWEVER by his response it seems likely that he knows who he is… and he knows that Neil isn’t the constable he had spoken with

[Herlock Sholmes]

buenos dias Herlock, how went your conversation with Mr. Jack “The Ripper” Daniels at the barbecue yesterday?

in reply to your post (appreciated btw),

yes indeed… Cross was specifically asked by Baxter if he had seen PC Neil.

…..
From the Evening Standard, 4 September 1888:

Charles Allen Cross, a carman, in the employ of Messrs. Pickford, said on Friday morning I left home at half past three… {etcetera}

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

Witness - No; it was very dark at the time… {etcetera}

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.
…..

now if Cross had answered…

“who the devil is PC Neil??”, or

”I don’t know any PC Neil, was he the previous constable you just now spoke with, the one who identified me here today?”, or

”is PC Neil the one in Church-row, the one me & that other carman spoke with? apologies, we didn’t take down that constable’s name, was running late for work that morning”

…i would be inclined to think that Cross had no foreknowledge of who PC Neil was going into the inquest HOWEVER by his response it seems likely that he knows who he is… and he knows that Neil isn’t the constable he had spoken with

Hi Robert,

Im still recovering. It takes much longer these days. A few years ago I’d have been up for a pint at lunchtime today.

You could be right on this point but I tend to think that he was just answering in terms of ‘I didn’t see any Constable whatever his name might have been. If you say that his name was Neil then fine…but I didn’t see him.’

[Robert St Devil]

Hi Robert,

Im still recovering. It takes much longer these days. A few years ago I’d have been up for a pint at lunchtime today.

Tied one on, eh? Yeah, that definitely sounds like the J. Daniels me & my liver remembers. Hair o’ the dog & a speedy recovery t’you

[Herlock Sholmes]

Tied one on, eh? Yeah, that definitely sounds like the J. Daniels me & my liver remembers. Hair o’ the dog & a speedy recovery t’you

Cheers Robert. If I was only 38 instead of 58. The problem is that I feel 88 at the moment.

[Robert St Devil]

Cheers Robert. If I was only 38 instead of 58. The problem is that I feel 88 at the moment.

if only…. 38

Friday’s yesterday, today’s Saturday - take in a sauna, go for a hike, rile up the missus, sweat it out. Come Monday, new weapons to forge, new battles to wage

[A P Tomlinson]

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.

At the risk of stating the obvious... I think we might be digging a little too deeply into needless complexity with this one.

Cross immediately followed Mizen in court. He will have recognised Mizen as the officer he spoke to, heard Mizen's name and realised that it was not Neil.

That's how he would have known that he hadn't seen a PC Neil on the morning of the murder.

[Robert St Devil]

Cross immediately followed Mizen in court. He will have recognised Mizen as the officer he spoke to, heard Mizen's name and realised that it was not Neil.

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

[rjpalmer]

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)

Let's cross reference the Evening Standard version with the Daily Telegraph version and see what we can see.

Daily Telegraph:


Police-constable Mizen said that at a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning 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, where a woman was lying. When he arrived there Constable Neil sent him for the ambulance. At that time nobody but Neil was with the body.

Chas. Andrew Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp. Witness said, "I believe she is dead." He touched her face, which felt warm. The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said "I think she is breathing, but very little if she is." Witness suggested that they should give her a prop, but his companion refused to touch her. Just then they heard a policeman coming. Witness did not notice that her throat was cut, the night being very dark. He and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met the last witness, whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on. The other man left witness soon after. Witness had never seen him before.

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row. There was nobody there when he and the other man left."

---

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.

Further, when Cross is later asked about seeing PC Neil, its clearly in reference to the constable in Buck's Row. "He denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's Row." (By contrast, Cross had seen Mizen in Baker's Row).

It's good to pick apart these details and question them, but I'm afraid I'm with Dr. Strange and A.P. on this one; since Cross didn't see a constable in Buck's Row, he doesn't need to know what PC Neil looked like in order to know he didn't see him. He doesn't even need to know his name.

Unless Cross was exceedingly dim-witted and easily confused, I think we have to allow that he was quick enough on the 'uptake' to realize what Coroner Baxter was asking him. Indeed, in his very next statement Cross said that "there was nobody there..." neither a police constable, nor anybody else. He's obviously talking about the crime scene in Buck's Row. I can't see how it would have made sense for Cross to deny seeing a constable (who he thinks was PC Neil) when he did see a constable: Mizen in Buck's Row.

I suspect Coroner Baxter asked Cross about PC Neil because Baxter knew about the controversy of what Cross had said to Mizen.

[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.

[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 ***