Witnesses Statements Incriminating Charles Cross

[Fisherman]

drstrange169:

The English language would define 3:40 as "about a quarter to four".

Point taken. And a good one it is! May I then take it that the English language would equally define 3:50 as "about a quarter to four"? Because "about a quarter to four" was what Mizen said.

Or maybe, just maybe, it only works the one way?

One may also add that if the PC:s were going by hearing the clock strike, then the quarter strike would have been heard by those who were around at 3:50, whereas the same people would not have heard that same strike when the clock was 3:40 only.

This means that if these PC:s asked themselves "letīs see now, when was the last time I heard the clock strike?", they would perhaps be less likely to answer that question "ah yes, it was the half hour strike, and I am sure that fifteen minutes has passed since then" and more inclined to reason "well, the clock only just struck the quarter hour, so that is the approximate time".

That, though, predisposes that they WERE allowed to reason that 3:50 was equal to "about 3:45". But I am sure that you can help me out and explain whether this was so!

[Monty]

Cheers, Monty. As I thought. So the 'twenty minutes past four' according to Fisherman's earlier quote was a reporting or typing error, presumably.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes Caz,

Which proves that one must act (in both formulating and assessing) with caution when dealing with secondary sources.

Monty

[drstrange169]

"Daily News) or he "at about a quarter to four o'clock" (IPN). Thatīs English language for you."

The English language would define 3:40 as "about a quarter to four".

[caz]

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

Cheers, Monty. As I thought. So the 'twenty minutes past four' according to Fisherman's earlier quote was a reporting or typing error, presumably.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

No, Paul stated he left his house at about 3.45am

Therefore, the estimations tie in. There is no huge discrepancy and, again, no reason to dispute Mizen.

The fact there is still a reliance on suspect interpretation of the English language kinda highlights just how dead this duck is.

Monty

They donīt tie in. For Mizen to be correct on 3.45, Paul needed to have left his home at 3.40.
Plus he said in the paper interview that it was EXACTLY 3.45 as he walked into Bucks row. And THAT ties in with him leaving "just before a quarter to four" (Daily News) or he "at about a quarter to four o'clock" (IPN). Thatīs English language for you.

The duckīs alive and kicking therefore, your behind not least.

[Monty]

No, Paul stated he left his house at about 3.45am

Therefore, the estimations tie in. There is no huge discrepancy and, again, no reason to dispute Mizen.

The fact there is still a reliance on suspect interpretation of the English language kinda highlights just how dead this duck is.

Monty

[Fisherman]

caz: 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.

How on earth would this tell us that Mizen was aware of any claims on pauls behalf?

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.

Everyone who had read the papers, you mean? But the police did not believe in Paul, Caz. They categorically denied what he said in his interview. It was not until Lechmere came forward that there was ever any acceptance of the carmen being the finder.
That is not to say that Lechmere could have gotten clean away. Sooner or later, somebody would have picked up on Mizens story and the hunt would have been on.

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.

Ha! No, Caz, it would provide the police with the newfound knowledge that a man who had afterwards disappeared, had originally been found alone with the victim. I am anything but sure that the police would erect a statue in commemoration of him. Then again, I AM a cynical bastard...

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?

Short and sweet: no.

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

"We" donīt. Monty has a schedule of his own, as has Dr Strange and a lot of other people.

My estimation would be roughly 3.52.

[Fisherman]

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

Paul said that he was in Bucks Row at exactly 3.45.
Mizen said that Paul arrived with Lechmere at 3.45.

It therefore does not tie in.

[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.

[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

[Harry D]

We are dealing with an estimation only.

Unless it incriminates Lechmere.

[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.

[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

[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

[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