Witnesses Statements Incriminating Charles Cross

[caz]

I know that I use a lot of CAPS and punctuation!!!!!! I can't help it. It's pretty clear that Christer is a good researcher. He's done a fine job pulling things together and weaving his tale. As a journalist, tale weaving is - I'm sure - right in his wheelhouse. Kudos for that.

I am, first and foremost and as you've likely assumed, a ladies men. After that, I am an analyst. That's my background. That's what I've done for 20 years. Now, I run a division of analysts. I interview, hire, fire, train, direct, and evaluate analysts. Thus, I have some idea when it comes to assembling data, evaluating it, and forming conclusions. Most data sets/facts present very obvious conclusions and you earn your money on the one's that might be a little tougher ID. Yet, there is no method I'm familiar with that would allow me to reach the conclusion Christer is selling based on the data that's available. I have a VERY difficult time accepting an irrational conclusion when the rational conclusion is plain and obvious, just sitting there, waving it's hand, saying look at me.

So, that's where I'm coming from. I felt like I needed to say that.

Now...moving on.....

By contrast, Patrick, I am not a ladies' man - or woman - and have little to offer by way of qualifications apart from my vast age, considerable experience of life and just the odd bit of common sense thrown in.

It's all I really need to agree entirely with you when it comes to Fisherman's analysis of the Buck's Row murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

SPILL THE BEANS ABOUT WHAT? No one knew anything about him! No name. No address. No employer. No physical description was published. He's "a man". That's it!

They said very different things? At the time Paul's account was published....Cross had said NOTHING! Why not let Paul tell the tale he gave himself a starring role in while relgating Cross to supporting actor with no lines, staying behind while Paul goes to find a cop?

You call Paul's interview a BOMBSHELL that drove Cross out of hiding. How? Why? You say the police could have found him because they knew which way he walked to work....easy fix......GO A DIFFERENT WAY? Or, what? In you word a few extra steps is too much effort to avoid being HANGED?

You cannot defend this tripe! That's why you don't repsond to me even as I've insulted you FAR LESS than you continue to insult any and all who quesion you! You CANNOT base a 'theory' on thoughts and motivations you make up and ascribe to participants based on assumptions!

Hi Patrick,

If Fish has got you on his 'ignore' list I don't think he can see your eminently sensible responses to his posts.

I of course can remedy this.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

I know that I use a lot of CAPS and punctuation!!!!!! I can't help it. It's pretty clear that Christer is a good researcher. He's done a fine job pulling things together and weaving his tale. As a journalist, tale weaving is - I'm sure - right in his wheelhouse. Kudos for that.

I am, first and foremost and as you've likely assumed, a ladies men. After that, I am an analyst. That's my background. That's what I've done for 20 years. Now, I run a division of analysts. I interview, hire, fire, train, direct, and evaluate analysts. Thus, I have some idea when it comes to assembling data, evaluating it, and forming conclusions. Most data sets/facts present very obvious conclusions and you earn your money on the one's that might be a little tougher ID. Yet, there is no method I'm familiar with that would allow me to reach the conclusion Christer is selling based on the data that's available. I have a VERY difficult time accepting an irrational conclusion when the rational conclusion is plain and obvious, just sitting there, waving it's hand, saying look at me.

So, that's where I'm coming from. I felt like I needed to say that.

Now...moving on.....

[Patrick S]

caz:

It's interesting that Mizen describes his informant as a carman, but the carman's companion as just 'another man'. Mizen also has the carman doing the talking.

Mizen did not know that the man he spoke to was a carman, Caz. He only assumed that this ws so on account of the manīs appearance. Accroding to the Echo, he had, however, been informed that the man he had spoken to was indeed a carman. Equally, Mizen had been informed about the name of the man:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman."

This is curiously consistent with the newspaper description of a carman informing a policeman, while a man he found at the scene is just 'the other man' - except for one crucial detail: the carman informant is Paul in the newspaper, but becomes Cross in Mizen's inquest testimony.

If Mizen read that newspaper interview and recognised himself, without knowing the names of either man, he'd have naturally assumed Paul was the carman who had informed him.

Iīm not so sure that A/ Mizen read the paper, and B/ that he would assume that Paul was the informant. Mizen would likely wonder what happened to the other guy, just as anybody would after reading the article.
It also applies that Mizen testified under oath to having been told only that a woman was ling flat on her back in Bucks Row - but the Lloyds article had carman Paul claiming that he had told Mizen that the woman was stone cold and very dead.
It would all look very garbled to Mizen, therefore - if he even read the article at all.

At some point he must have learned (presumably only thanks to Cross showing up!) that his informant's name wasn't Paul, but Cross, which makes you wonder what he made of this.

If he read the article, he would presumably have made of it what I make of it - he would realize that Paul was not telling the truth.

He didn't yet know what Cross was going to say at the inquest, nor if Paul might turn up too and repeat what he had told the newspaper.

Thatīs all very true. But after having heard Lechmere, he would not have expected any reappearance of the Paul claims from the article, since he would have known them to be false.

If the Lechmere theorists are right,

Incidentally, we are

...and Mizen was telling the truth about only one man doing the talking (and not saying it because he thought it would fit in better with the published account), while Paul had lied about being the spokesman, a guilty Lechmere had no need to call himself Cross...

He would have the exact same reason we always identified - to keep his name out of the papers,

...and 'correct' anyone on that score at the inquest, by claiming they had both spoken to Mizen and denying he had said there was a policeman at the scene.

He KNEW that he had spoken to Mizen himself. He probably knew that Paul had not. He stood to gain from fooling the inquest, and he knew that Paul in the article HAD claimed to have spoken to Mizen. Itīs all very easy.

And of course he would not admit having lied to Mizen!

It would have been for Paul to deny it, if he ever showed up, as he had already claimed to have done the talking, and in the meanwhile Mizen would have been none the wiser.

Aaahhh - NOW I see what you are getting at - you mean that Lechmere could have stayed away from the inquest!
But no - how was he to know that Paul would not turn up and spill the beans? And as I said in the beginning, Lechmere would not identify Paul with his own informant, since they said very different things. And we donīt know that Mizen read the paper!

SPILL THE BEANS ABOUT WHAT? No one knew anything about him! No name. No address. No employer. No physical description was published. He's "a man". That's it!

They said very different things? At the time Paul's account was published....Cross had said NOTHING! Why not let Paul tell the tale he gave himself a starring role in while relgating Cross to supporting actor with no lines, staying behind while Paul goes to find a cop?

You call Paul's interview a BOMBSHELL that drove Cross out of hiding. How? Why? You say the police could have found him because they knew which way he walked to work....easy fix......GO A DIFFERENT WAY? Or, what? In you word a few extra steps is too much effort to avoid being HANGED?

You cannot defend this tripe! That's why you don't repsond to me even as I've insulted you FAR LESS than you continue to insult any and all who quesion you! You CANNOT base a 'theory' on thoughts and motivations you make up and ascribe to participants based on assumptions!

[Fisherman]

caz:

It's interesting that Mizen describes his informant as a carman, but the carman's companion as just 'another man'. Mizen also has the carman doing the talking.

Mizen did not know that the man he spoke to was a carman, Caz. He only assumed that this ws so on account of the manīs appearance. Accroding to the Echo, he had, however, been informed that the man he had spoken to was indeed a carman. Equally, Mizen had been informed about the name of the man:

"Police-constable George Myzen, 55 H, said that on Friday morning, at twenty minutes past four, he was at the corner of Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, when a man, who looked like a carman, said, "You are wanted in Buck's-row." Witness now knew the man to be named Cross, and he was a carman."

This is curiously consistent with the newspaper description of a carman informing a policeman, while a man he found at the scene is just 'the other man' - except for one crucial detail: the carman informant is Paul in the newspaper, but becomes Cross in Mizen's inquest testimony.

If Mizen read that newspaper interview and recognised himself, without knowing the names of either man, he'd have naturally assumed Paul was the carman who had informed him.

Iīm not so sure that A/ Mizen read the paper, and B/ that he would assume that Paul was the informant. Mizen would likely wonder what happened to the other guy, just as anybody would after reading the article.
It also applies that Mizen testified under oath to having been told only that a woman was ling flat on her back in Bucks Row - but the Lloyds article had carman Paul claiming that he had told Mizen that the woman was stone cold and very dead.
It would all look very garbled to Mizen, therefore - if he even read the article at all.

At some point he must have learned (presumably only thanks to Cross showing up!) that his informant's name wasn't Paul, but Cross, which makes you wonder what he made of this.

If he read the article, he would presumably have made of it what I make of it - he would realize that Paul was not telling the truth.

He didn't yet know what Cross was going to say at the inquest, nor if Paul might turn up too and repeat what he had told the newspaper.

Thatīs all very true. But after having heard Lechmere, he would not have expected any reappearance of the Paul claims from the article, since he would have known them to be false.

If the Lechmere theorists are right,

Incidentally, we are

...and Mizen was telling the truth about only one man doing the talking (and not saying it because he thought it would fit in better with the published account), while Paul had lied about being the spokesman, a guilty Lechmere had no need to call himself Cross...

He would have the exact same reason we always identified - to keep his name out of the papers,

...and 'correct' anyone on that score at the inquest, by claiming they had both spoken to Mizen and denying he had said there was a policeman at the scene.

He KNEW that he had spoken to Mizen himself. He probably knew that Paul had not. He stood to gain from fooling the inquest, and he knew that Paul in the article HAD claimed to have spoken to Mizen. Itīs all very easy.

And of course he would not admit having lied to Mizen!

It would have been for Paul to deny it, if he ever showed up, as he had already claimed to have done the talking, and in the meanwhile Mizen would have been none the wiser.

Aaahhh - NOW I see what you are getting at - you mean that Lechmere could have stayed away from the inquest!
But no - how was he to know that Paul would not turn up and spill the beans? And as I said in the beginning, Lechmere would not identify Paul with his own informant, since they said very different things. And we donīt know that Mizen read the paper!

[caz]

PC Jonas Mizen

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.

Hi Patrick,

It's interesting that Mizen describes his informant as a carman, but the carman's companion as just 'another man'. Mizen also has the carman doing the talking.

This is curiously consistent with the newspaper description of a carman informing a policeman, while a man he found at the scene is just 'the other man' - except for one crucial detail: the carman informant is Paul in the newspaper, but becomes Cross in Mizen's inquest testimony.

If Mizen read that newspaper interview and recognised himself, without knowing the names of either man, he'd have naturally assumed Paul was the carman who had informed him. At some point he must have learned (presumably only thanks to Cross showing up!) that his informant's name wasn't Paul, but Cross, which makes you wonder what he made of this. He didn't yet know what Cross was going to say at the inquest, nor if Paul might turn up too and repeat what he had told the newspaper.

If the Lechmere theorists are right, and Mizen was telling the truth about only one man doing the talking (and not saying it because he thought it would fit in better with the published account), while Paul had lied about being the spokesman, a guilty Lechmere had no need to call himself Cross and 'correct' anyone on that score at the inquest, by claiming they had both spoken to Mizen and denying he had said there was a policeman at the scene. It would have been for Paul to deny it, if he ever showed up, as he had already claimed to have done the talking, and in the meanwhile Mizen would have been none the wiser. If and when Paul was called to give an account of himself, he would have been the one in trouble if Mizen realised it was the anonymous 'other man' who had informed him, and Mizen would have been in trouble if he admitted his mistake.

Love,

Caz
X

[RockySullivan]

For me the most interesting aspect of Paul's statement is that the spot was known for gang attacks. I wonder if any old new's reports might contain an arrest made after an attack on that same spot since it was so notorious.

[Patrick S]

There is so much inference about Charles Cross based on what Paul and Mizen said the night of Nichols' murder, I'd like to nail down exactly what that is. Please add to this thread any statement made in interviews, at the inquest, wherever, by Mizen and Paul that details anything that was said or occured while Charles Cross was present.

Let's start with this:

Robert Paul

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.

On Friday night Mr. Robert Paul, a carman, on his return from work, made the following statement to our representative. He said :- It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me, but as I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth. Few people like to come up and down here without being on their guard, for there are such terrible gangs about. There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot. The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman." I went and found the woman lying on her back. I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her. I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle. I was obliged to be punctual at my work, so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw. I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head.

Robert Baul [Paul], 30, Forster-street, Whitechapel, carman, said as he was going to work at Cobbett's-court, Spitalfields, he saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Baul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway. He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint. The man walked with him to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman. Before he reached Buck's-row he had seen no one running away.

PC Jonas Mizen

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.