The Mizen Meeting

[Geddy2112]

Hi, hope everyone is well. Just a quick question. Do we know with any degree of certainty the exact, more or less location Paul, Cross and Mizen met on the 31st Aug 1888?

[Fiver]

"We left together, and went up Baker's row, where we met a constable." - Charles Cross

"...the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row..." - Robert Paul

"Policeman George Myzen said that at a quarter to four on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-Street, Baker's-row".

[FrankO]

Hi Ian,

I think it was somewhere in the red oval. Mizen himself stated that he was "at the corner" or "at the end" of Hanbury Street. And when he admitted that he continued to knock at one house before leaving for Buck's Row, I think that house was still in Hanbury Street.



Cheers,
Frank

[Geddy2112]

I think it was somewhere in the red oval.

Hi Frank, yes I suspect that is correct. If so it is fairly obvious why he, Cross continued up Hanbury St and not Old Monty Street, not in an attempt to follow Paul but rather it just meant he did not even slightly have to double back. Another example of no suspicion and a rather simple boring explanation.

Thanks Fiver

[JeffHamm]

Hi Ian,

I think it was somewhere in the red oval. Mizen himself stated that he was "at the corner" or "at the end" of Hanbury Street. And when he admitted that he continued to knock at one house before leaving for Buck's Row, I think that house was still in Hanbury Street.



Cheers,
Frank

Around there makes good sense. It's also, at an average walking pace (I used 3.1 mph), only about 3m 30s walk from the crime scene, which fits with Paul's statement that it was no more than 4 minutes after his arrival that they met PC Mizen. I tend to believe that Cross/Lechmere and Paul's examination of Polly was very short, well under a minute (I've argued for as short as 10-15s), so combined with the inaccuracy of estimating durations from memory, the distance and testimonies all line up well without any issues.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

Around there makes good sense. It's also, at an average walking pace (I used 3.1 mph), only about 3m 30s walk from the crime scene, which fits with Paul's statement that it was no more than 4 minutes after his arrival that they met PC Mizen. I tend to believe that Cross/Lechmere and Paul's examination of Polly was very short, well under a minute (I've argued for as short as 10-15s), so combined with the inaccuracy of estimating durations from memory, the distance and testimonies all line up well without any issues.

Completely agree and like I mentioned I'm trying to negate the 'why did he not use Old Monty Street' instead of following Paul to his place of work so he could drop a body there the following week because Paul 'dobbed' him into the Press. Even though of course, Paul had not given his statement to the press at this point haha. Bit of a clairvoyant our Charlie Boy...

[FrankO]

Around there makes good sense. It's also, at an average walking pace (I used 3.1 mph), only about 3m 30s walk from the crime scene, which fits with Paul's statement that it was no more than 4 minutes after his arrival that they met PC Mizen. I tend to believe that Cross/Lechmere and Paul's examination of Polly was very short, well under a minute (I've argued for as short as 10-15s), so combined with the inaccuracy of estimating durations from memory, the distance and testimonies all line up well without any issues.

Agreed all around, Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

Completely agree and like I mentioned I'm trying to negate the 'why did he not use Old Monty Street' instead of following Paul to his place of work so he could drop a body there the following week because Paul 'dobbed' him into the Press. Even though of course, Paul had not given his statement to the press at this point haha. Bit of a clairvoyant our Charlie Boy...

I think your reasoning on that matter is sound. This was just one more bit of information that falls into place in terms of evaluating your suggested meeting place and why it makes sense. If it were further into the intersection, let's say, to try and suggest he could have gone either street just as easily, that might fit the timing as well (these estimates have quite wide ranges for acceptable given how few facts we have, like their actual walking speeds! etc), but then it becomes a bit difficult to understand what other house could Mizen have knocked up if he's not in the street proper?

I find it seems often the case that with the Cross/Lechmere theory, the strongest proponents look for a way that works for them and, when they find it, see it as the only solution despite there being all sorts of solutions that go against the theory of guilt. And in my view, the explanations that go against the idea all fit together without interfering with each other, while the individual explanations for different things that "support guilt" often just create self-contradiction when all viewed together. They only work when viewed in isolation. That, as far as I'm concerned, is a clear indication that the guilty theory is fundamentally flawed in its reasoning.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Agreed all around, Jeff.

Thanks. The distance to PC Mizen and Paul's testimony has been raised in the past, so it's not new, but I am glad that this time my memory served me well! Next time, no guarantees though.

- Jeff