Witnesses Statements Incriminating Charles Cross

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

[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!

[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.....

[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

[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]

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

Hi Fish,

But not going to the inquest would have kept both his names out of the papers, plus his home address and place of work. He would just have been Paul's 'other man' and - better still - doubled up as Mizen's 'other man', whether Mizen had read Paul's account or not when he decided he'd better come clean about how he came to be in Buck's Row. Unless or until either man showed up again to tell the tale, it was just carman Robert Paul and A.N. Other, who 'looked like' a carman. Without the benefit of the newspaper interview it would have just been two unnamed men who both looked like carmen as far as Mizen was concerned. He would never know the man who spoke to him was Cross, would he?

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.

Fooling the inquest about what, exactly? You don't think it would have been a hundred times easier to stay away and fool the inquest into assuming Paul was the carman who had spoken to Mizen, just as he claimed in the newspaper? How would Mizen have known any different, since they both looked like carmen and he didn't get their names?

[B]Aaahhh - NOW I see what you are getting at - you mean that Lechmere could have stayed away from the inquest!

It's a good idea to read the whole post before responding, Fish.

But no - how was he to know that Paul would not turn up and spill the beans?

What, and reveal that he had lied in his newspaper interview and made up his conversation with the policeman, which had never happened, because he had sodded off to get to work on time? That it was the 'other man' (a total stranger who only 'looked like' a carman) who had actually done the right thing and asked Mizen to go and help the poor woman?

How in the name of sanity would that have helped Paul or hindered an absent, unidentified Lechmere?

Do you even bother to think these things through, like you insist Lechmere would have done, in the time he had to decide whether or not to connect himself officially with the Nichols murder?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"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."

Hi Fish,

This does read to me as though Mizen was at least aware of Robert Paul's claims and would indeed have assumed this was the same man who had told him about Nichols (until Cross appeared), because Paul said he was a carman and the man did look like one to Mizen.

Mizen (and everyone else at the inquest) only 'now' knew the man to be named Cross because Cross had obliged by coming forward to correct any misapprehensions and to identify himself as the one Mizen was talking about. Had he not done so I have little doubt that everyone would have assumed it was Paul who had told Mizen he was wanted in Buck's Row.

By swapping the roles round to give himself the glory, Paul is offering a guilty Lechmere a free lifeline here, yet he tosses this aside in his eagerness to claim back the centre stage nobody else knew he had even occupied? If it's true that only one man spoke to Mizen, Paul was unlikely to volunteer the fact that it was the other man, and if he was forced to admit it, it would merely give that man back the glory he deserved.

By the way, how do you explain Mizen's timing in the above quote? Was it meant to read twenty minutes to four, which would seem to make more sense? There is no way the men raised the alarm with Mizen as late as twenty minutes past four, is there?

Do we know what time - roughly - he was sent for the ambulance?

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

The horse slaughterers arrived at 4.20am, because that was their usual knocking off time. However, instead of going home, they went to see the body.

Mizen was informed at 3.45 am.

Monty

[Fisherman]

The horse slaughterers arrived at 4.20am, because that was their usual knocking off time. However, instead of going home, they went to see the body.

Mizen was informed at 3.45 am.

Monty

Correction: Mizen SAID he was informed at about this time: "Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning ..." (Daily News).

We are dealing with an estimation only.

[Harry D]

We are dealing with an estimation only.

Unless it incriminates Lechmere.

[Monty]

Correction: Mizen SAID he was informed at about this time: "Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock on Friday morning ..." (Daily News).

We are dealing with an estimation only.

Yes, he said at inquest, as in verbally expressing what had occurred. Past tense of saying. Not a questioning of integrity, which would be out of context and wholly incorrect.

Mizen's stated time ties in with the known facts, and the statements of Cross, Paul, Neil and Kirby.

There is no need for him to have lied.

And the difference between 3.45am and 4.20am cannot be covered by estimation, not to a. Constable of Mizens (and Neils) experience.


Monty

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Fish,

But not going to the inquest would have kept both his names out of the papers, plus his home address and place of work.

Plus it would have every PC in London looking for him, speculating that he was the probable killer. Not a very good thing, methinks. And Mizen and Paul could ID him.

He would just have been Paul's 'other man' and - better still - doubled up as Mizen's 'other man', whether Mizen had read Paul's account or not when he decided he'd better come clean about how he came to be in Buck's Row. Unless or until either man showed up again to tell the tale, it was just carman Robert Paul and A.N. Other, who 'looked like' a carman. Without the benefit of the newspaper interview it would have just been two unnamed men who both looked like carmen as far as Mizen was concerned. He would never know the man who spoke to him was Cross, would he?

Not if neither carman turned up, no. But letīs be a bit realistic here, Caz:
Lechmere apparently read the Paul interview in the papers. That told him that the story was out. And he must have thought that it was out anyway, since he had spoken to a PC about it. Why would he presume that this PC would forget about that part?
So, Caz, my guess is that Lechmere would reason like this:
"That other carman has gone to the press and blabbered. Now the police have found out that I was found standing alone by the body and that there was no other PC there, the way I told that PC in Bakers Row. That means they will start to look for me and try to find out who I am. I had better go to the cop shop and serve a story that takes me out of harms way."

Lechmere walked the same stretch every day. He would be easy enough to net. The alternative would be to go home and say "We are moving to Ipswich today, dear. Oh, and we are changing our family name to Getawayson". (Although the police did not have his name, it satnds to eason that they would have been informed if a carman who normally walked that exact route suddenly went missing.)

Fooling the inquest about what, exactly? You don't think it would have been a hundred times easier to stay away and fool the inquest into assuming Paul was the carman who had spoken to Mizen, just as he claimed in the newspaper? How would Mizen have known any different, since they both looked like carmen and he didn't get their names?

Yes, it would have been easier. And it would have been stupid.

It's a good idea to read the whole post before responding, Fish.

And another eminent idea to be clear when writing.

What, and reveal that he had lied in his newspaper interview and made up his conversation with the policeman, which had never happened, because he had sodded off to get to work on time? That it was the 'other man' (a total stranger who only 'looked like' a carman) who had actually done the right thing and asked Mizen to go and help the poor woman?

How in the name of sanity would that have helped Paul or hindered an absent, unidentified Lechmere?

Do you even bother to think these things through, like you insist Lechmere would have done, in the time he had to decide whether or not to connect himself officially with the Nichols murder?

Charming, my dear! But I thought them through long before you learnt to spell Lechmere. Just like Lechmere could not be certain that Paul would not come forward and testify, Paul could not be certain that Lechmere would not be found or report to the cop shop. And if Paul had lied to the inquest, then it would spell trouble.

You get so impressed by the scenarios you conjure up that you fail to look at them from a critical point of view. The result is less than impressive.