Inquest Reports of Mizen/Cross Evidence

[David Orsam]

Regarding the time that Paul saw Cross in Buck's Row, the answer can be found in Inspector Abberline's report of 19 Sept 1888. Obviously Abberline had full access to all the evidence and would have been aware of the locality. He wrote in his report (which I take from the The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner):

"I beg to report that about 3.40am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back in the footway...he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up...".

So from this we see:

1. The ambiguity from the newspaper reports about which time Cross left his home is cleared up. The two reporters who heard "3.20" were definitely wrong. Abberline would have known it would not have taken Cross 20 minutes to reach Bucks Row from his home in Doveton Street. The five reporters who heard "3.30" were certainly correct.

2. The notion that Paul appeared in Bucks Row at 4.45 is comprehensively demolished. Abberline would not have placed the time at which Cross found the body at about 4.40 if there was any evidence that Paul strolled round the corner a full five minutes later.

Abberline might not have solved the murder but he was no fool and would have been perfectly capable of establishing a simple matter of timing. The fact that he plumps for 4.40 confirms what I have previously argued that it was the meeting with Mizen that took place at about 4.45am.

From Abberline's report, it can be seen that the idea that, on the evidence, there was a "major" nine minute gap is dead in the water. For such a gap to have existed, then despite the previous reliance on Cross's testimony as to the time he left his home, it would have had to have been at least six minutes earlier than he testified to. If he left at the time he said he did, and we accept the timing of 7 minutes for him to walk to Bucks Row, then he had no more than 3 minutes to murder Nichols before Paul's arrival. While this might have been physically possible, it does mean that the "9 minute gap" is a gap of fiction and, in my submission, in the light of Abberline's clear timing of events, should not be repeated.

[Fisherman]

Regarding the time that Paul saw Cross in Buck's Row, the answer can be found in Inspector Abberline's report of 19 Sept 1888. Obviously Abberline had full access to all the evidence and would have been aware of the locality. He wrote in his report (which I take from the The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner):

"I beg to report that about 3.40am 31st Ult. as Charles Cross, "carman" of 22 Doveton Street, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green was passing through Bucks Row, Whitechapel (on his way to work) he noticed a woman lying on her back in the footway...he stopped to look at the woman when another carman (also on his way to work) named Robert Paul of 30 Foster St., Bethnal Green came up...".

So from this we see:

1. The ambiguity from the newspaper reports about which time Cross left his home is cleared up. The two reporters who heard "3.20" were definitely wrong. Abberline would have known it would not have taken Cross 20 minutes to reach Bucks Row from his home in Doveton Street. The five reporters who heard "3.30" were certainly correct.

2. The notion that Paul appeared in Bucks Row at 4.45 is comprehensively demolished. Abberline would not have placed the time at which Cross found the body at about 4.40 if there was any evidence that Paul strolled round the corner a full five minutes later.

Abberline might not have solved the murder but he was no fool and would have been perfectly capable of establishing a simple matter of timing. The fact that he plumps for 4.40 confirms what I have previously argued that it was the meeting with Mizen that took place at about 4.45am.

From Abberline's report, it can be seen that the idea that, on the evidence, there was a "major" nine minute gap is dead in the water. For such a gap to have existed, then despite the previous reliance on Cross's testimony as to the time he left his home, it would have had to have been at least six minutes earlier than he testified to. If he left at the time he said he did, and we accept the timing of 7 minutes for him to walk to Bucks Row, then he had no more than 3 minutes to murder Nichols before Paul's arrival. While this might have been physically possible, it does mean that the "9 minute gap" is a gap of fiction and, in my submission, in the light of Abberline's clear timing of events, should not be repeated.

Should not be repeated...?

Wow.

Because Abberline could not be wrong...?

Allow me to offer you a stroll through the relevant parts of the material, David! I would not want to go glip of my possibility to make my own choice here, as you may appreciate!

Now! The report you mention was signed not only by Abberline. It also carried the signatures of John Shore and Donald Swanson.

Swanson was the "spider in the web", brought in to coordinate and make sense of all the information pertaining to the case. He was in charge amongst these three men, he made the calls and decisions.

Note that the report says "at about" 3.40 - they were not sure, but plumped for this time anyway.

Also note that the report was compiled on September 19, before the inquest was finished, and while there was much ongoing discussions and work about the case.

But there is another report to take part of. And that one is later - the 19:th of October.
Now, the discussions had brought the errand to another stance.

This report is signed by Swanson only, but you may rest assured that it was a weighing together on his behalf of all the information that had come to light, and all considerations that had been made since the last report.

This report begins "I beg to report that the following are the particulars relating to the murder of Mary Ann Nichols in possession of the police.
3.45 a.m. 31st. Augst. The body of a woman was found lying on the footway in Bucks Row, Whitechapel..."

So, David, once the police had had the time to consider and weigh together what they had, they decided that 3.45 was the correct time. And this time there is no "about" - they set the time to 3.45, end of story.

So I will stand by my conviction that Robert Paul was the one man that seemingly had an exact time to work from. He said that it was "exactly" 3.45 as he passed down Buck´s Row, and I find that it would be odd for him to give that time if he had not checked it with the aid of a clock.

Apparently, Swanson ultimately arrived at the same conclusion.

All the best,
Fisherman

PS. Since you "blew my conviction out of the water", may I please launch it again...?

[David Orsam]

Fisherman - four points in response:

1. To say "about 3.40" does not indicate uncertainty. It indicates that, in the absence of a clock striking or something like that, it was absolutely impossible to pin down the time to the exact minute.

2. Abberline's report was in his handwriting and was written by him.

3. No new evidence emerged as to the timing of the finding of Nichols' body between 19 Sept and 19 Oct.

4. Abberline was the man on the ground and closer to the detail. The fact that he used a time of 3.40am when this was not specifically mentioned by any witness indicates that he had given the matter some thought. Swanson on the other hand was more big picture. We can see this most clearly in the timings included in his report on the murder of Annie Chapman also dated 19 Oct.

Let's take a look:

Inquest testimony of John Davis - "He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard...he saw the deceased woman lying flat on her back".

Swanson: "6 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. The body of a woman was discovered in the back yard...by John Davis".

Inquest testimony of Timothy Donovan: "She remained there until shortly before 2 o'clock the next morning".

Swanson: "2 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. She was last seen alive at 2 a.m. by John (sic) Donovan".

Inquest testimony of John Richardson (of 2, John-street): "Between a quarter and 20 minutes to 5 he went to Hanbury-street".

Swanson: "4.45 a.m. 8th Sept. John Richardson of 29 Hanbury St (sic) sat on the steps leading to the back yard".

Inquest testimony of Albert Cadosch: "he got up at about 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house...returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence".

Swanson: "5.25 a.m (sic) 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch...had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27."

Swanson: "5.28 a.m. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise".

Inquest testimony of Elizabeth Long: "It was about 5.30...She saw a man and woman on the pavement talking".

Swanson: "5.30 a.m. 8th Sept. Mrs Long…saw a man and woman talking".

It is true that Abberline also referred to 6am as the time of the body's discovery but, in light of the above, if you read it carefully, it is absolutely unsustainable to claim that Swanson's inclusion of 3.45am in his report has any meaning other than an approximate time. To repeat, Abberline's use of 3.40 indicates he has given the matter some thought and he was closest to the details. Regrettably, therefore, I cannot agree to a relaunch of the 9 minute fiction.

[David Orsam]

I have been looking at the newspaper reports of the second day of the Nichols inquest and, from a comparison of those reports (especially comparing mistakes and differences), believe I have identified 8 separate court reporters who attended the inquest on 3 September 1888. These are as follows (with the main newspaper(s) in which their report appeared in parentheses):

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C (Daily News, East London Observer - in expanded form)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, London Weekly News)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Illustrated Police News)
Reporter H (Evening News)

I have now found two additional reporters:

Reporter I (Evening Post)
Reporter J (Dover Express - presumably sourced from a London agency)

I will reproduce their accounts of Mizen's and Cross's evidence below (although the Dover Express does not report Mizen's evidence). They both state that the time of departure by Cross from his home was 3:30am, thus meaning that 7 of the 9 reporters who reported his evidence used this time.

From the Dover Express we learn one thing not mentioned in any of the London newspapers, namely that, once Cross concluded his evidence, the inquiry broke for lunch.

In addition, in respect of Reporter G, I note that the Illustrated Police News reports first appeared in the Daily Chronicle while, in respect of Reporter E, the same reports that appeared in the Daily Telegraph and Lloyd's Weekly News are to be found in the Weekly Dispatch.

Curiously, the Weekly Dispatch of 2 September 1888 carries an account of what is presumably Robert Paul's version of finding the body (although Paul is not named) which is slightly different to the version carried in Lloyd's Weekly News of that same day. It says:

"Half-way down the street is the house of Mrs. Green. Next to it is a large stable yard, with a wide closed gateway. In front of the gateway the woman was found by two men, who at first supposed her to be drunk, but upon closer inspection saw first a pool of blood in the gutter just below her, and then the deathly whiteness of
THE WOMAN’S FACE STAINED WITH BLOOD.
One of them remained by her while the other found Constable Neil."

[David Orsam]

Evening Post 3 Sept 1888

"Police-constable Mizen said that on Friday morning, about a quarter to four, he was in Baker’s-row, at the corner of Hanbury-street. A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”. A carman was brought in court, and witness said he was the man. He went round and found Police-constable Neil with the deceased. At Neil’s suggestion he went for the ambulance, and afterwards assisted to remove the body. Blood was running from her neck.

Charles Cross, the carman referred to, said he was in the employ of Messrs Pickford and Co. On Friday morning he left home about half-past three. Passing through Buck’s-row he saw something dark lying on the pavement, and, going to the centre of the road, saw that it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man coming up behind him, and stopped to let him come up. When the man got near witness went to him and he started back as though alarmed. Witness said, “Here’s a woman,” and they went across to her. Witness touched her hands, and feeling them cold, said, “I believe she is dead.” Touching her cheek, he felt it was warm. The other man put his hand over her heart, and said he fancied she was breathing a little. He then suggested they should sit her up, but witness said he should not touch her. They had better go on until they saw a policeman. The woman’s clothes were above her knees, and before they went away the other man tried to pull her clothes down, but could not. He did not notice any blood. They went away and met a constable coming out of Montague-street, and told him what they had seen, remarking that either the woman was dead or insensibly drunk. The policeman said, “All right.” He believed the policeman he met to be the last witness. Witness and the other man soon afterwards separated. He did not know who he was but he appeared to be a carman. Before he saw the body he did not remember meeting anyone after leaving his house. As the woman was lying, she looked as though she had just been outraged and had gone off in a swoon. But he had no idea she had been injured, her legs were wide open, and the toes were turned outwards."

Dover Express 7 Sept 1888

"Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence.

H. Charles Cross, a carman in the employ of Messrs Pickford & Co., said he left home about 3.30 on the morning of the murder, and he reached Pickford’s at about four o’clock. He went through Brady-street into Buck’s-row, and as he was walking on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he saw something lying on the other side of the road. It seemed to him like a dark figure. He walked out to the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man coming up the street, in the same direction, and on the same side of the road as himself. The witness then said, “Come a little nearer; there is a woman.” He stood at the side of the body and took hold of the deceased’s hand. The witness then said: “Why, I believe the woman’s dead.” The other man felt her heart, and said he believed she was dead. The witness’s companion suggested that they should raise her, but the witness declined to do anything until a policeman arrived. The witness then described the position of the body. They found a constable and informed him of their discovery.

After an interval for luncheon.

William Nicholls……"

[The Good Michael]

A man passed, who looked like a carman, and said “You are wanted round in Buck’s-row”.

Interesting..."you are wanted". An officer hearing that would have thought someone sent the men for them. Had they said, "You are needed." it would have meant nearly the same thing, but there's of course a nuanced difference. Yet, a cop hearing one, could quite simply imply the other.

Mike

[David Orsam]

Interesting..."you are wanted". An officer hearing that would have thought someone sent the men for them. Had they said, "You are needed." it would have meant nearly the same thing, but there's of course a nuanced difference. Yet, a cop hearing one, could quite simply imply the other.

Mike

I'm not saying it is crystal clear what happened at the inquest but note the report in the Echo of 3 Sept by Reporter F:

"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. Witness asked him what was the matter, and Cross replied, "A policeman wants you; there is a woman lying there."

In other words, on this account, Mizen asks Cross to explain why he is wanted in Bucks Row and, according to Mizen, Cross then specifically tells him that a policeman wants him. If that is how it happened at the inquest then it completely answers your point.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman - four points in response:

1. To say "about 3.40" does not indicate uncertainty. It indicates that, in the absence of a clock striking or something like that, it was absolutely impossible to pin down the time to the exact minute.

2. Abberline's report was in his handwriting and was written by him.

3. No new evidence emerged as to the timing of the finding of Nichols' body between 19 Sept and 19 Oct.

4. Abberline was the man on the ground and closer to the detail. The fact that he used a time of 3.40am when this was not specifically mentioned by any witness indicates that he had given the matter some thought. Swanson on the other hand was more big picture. We can see this most clearly in the timings included in his report on the murder of Annie Chapman also dated 19 Oct.

Let's take a look:

Inquest testimony of John Davis - "He got up about a quarter to 6. Soon afterwards he went across the yard...he saw the deceased woman lying flat on her back".

Swanson: "6 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. The body of a woman was discovered in the back yard...by John Davis".

Inquest testimony of Timothy Donovan: "She remained there until shortly before 2 o'clock the next morning".

Swanson: "2 a.m. 8th Sept. 1888. She was last seen alive at 2 a.m. by John (sic) Donovan".

Inquest testimony of John Richardson (of 2, John-street): "Between a quarter and 20 minutes to 5 he went to Hanbury-street".

Swanson: "4.45 a.m. 8th Sept. John Richardson of 29 Hanbury St (sic) sat on the steps leading to the back yard".

Inquest testimony of Albert Cadosch: "he got up at about 5.15 and went out into the yard of his house...returned to the yard three or four minutes afterwards. He then heard a sort of a fall against the fence".

Swanson: "5.25 a.m (sic) 8th Sept. Albert Cadosch...had occasion to go into the yard at the rear of No. 27."

Swanson: "5.28 a.m. 8th Sept. On Cadosch going back into the yard again he heard a noise".

Inquest testimony of Elizabeth Long: "It was about 5.30...She saw a man and woman on the pavement talking".

Swanson: "5.30 a.m. 8th Sept. Mrs Long…saw a man and woman talking".

It is true that Abberline also referred to 6am as the time of the body's discovery but, in light of the above, if you read it carefully, it is absolutely unsustainable to claim that Swanson's inclusion of 3.45am in his report has any meaning other than an approximate time. To repeat, Abberline's use of 3.40 indicates he has given the matter some thought and he was closest to the details. Regrettably, therefore, I cannot agree to a relaunch of the 9 minute fiction.

... but in the end, the official version had changed from 3.40-ish to 3.45 in the month that passed. And that means that having weighed things together and ended up with 3.45.

Whether there were built-in anomalies or not in the Chapman material is uninteresting, unless we use them to promote a line saying that the longer the police got to scrutinize an errand and the more Swanson was involved, the lesser the chance that they got it right.

Abberline´s view would have been weighed in into the 19:th oc October report too, as well as any other view that surfaced. Then Swanson had to weigh it all together and decide which was the more likely point of time.

When Sweden´s prime minister Olof Palme was shot in 1986, the exact same thing happened - the timings for the shots, the arrival of the ambulance and so on, changed from report to report, and it was not until all the material was collected that they were able to present the most likely schedule, built on all reports and views.

No disrespect to Abberline, but something made Swanson alter the initial time from 3.40-ish to 3.45. I can only assume that there would have been fair reason to do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[David Orsam]

Hello again Fisherman. I do of course fully understand why you would prefer to rely on the timing in Swanson's report than Abberline's but, to me, it is perfectly clear that the chief inspector was simply not so close to the facts as the investigating officer and he was - not slapdash as such - but just less careful in his approach to the details. If you seriously think that Swanson decided that Abberline got his timings wrong and re-examined the evidence, or obtained new evidence, in respect of this point which has caused him to correct his inspector, then we part company here on our understanding of how the world actually works.

[David Orsam]

Dover Express 7 Sept 1888

"Police-constable Mizen gave corroborative evidence.

H. Charles Cross, a carman in the employ of Messrs Pickford & Co., said he left home about 3.30 on the morning of the murder, and he reached Pickford’s at about four o’clock. He went through Brady-street into Buck’s-row, and as he was walking on the right hand side of Buck’s-row he saw something lying on the other side of the road. It seemed to him like a dark figure. He walked out to the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. At the same time he heard a man coming up the street, in the same direction, and on the same side of the road as himself. The witness then said, “Come a little nearer; there is a woman.” He stood at the side of the body and took hold of the deceased’s hand. The witness then said: “Why, I believe the woman’s dead.” The other man felt her heart, and said he believed she was dead. The witness’s companion suggested that they should raise her, but the witness declined to do anything until a policeman arrived. The witness then described the position of the body. They found a constable and informed him of their discovery.

After an interval for luncheon.

William Nicholls……"

I have now established that the above report from the Dover Express of 7 September originally appeared in the Globe of 3 September. This means that we can identify the following 10 reporters at the inquest on 3 September 1888:

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C (Daily News, East London Observer)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, London Weekly News, Weekly Dispatch)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Daily Chronicle, Illustrated Police News)
Reporter H (Evening News)
Reporter I (Evening Post)
Reporter J (Globe)

Of the above, Reporter H did not report the evidence of Cross in the surviving edition of the Evening News. A & B are the only two who report that Cross left his home at about 3:20am whereas the remaining seven all say it was about 3:30am. I note that Fisherman has a habit of saying that Cross's evidence was that he left his house at (about) either 3:20 or 3:30, thus keeping alive the possibility that he might have said 3:20 (although he doesn't say that Mizen spoke to Cross at either 3:45 or 4:15). It seems to me to be unlikely in the extreme that Cross's evidence was that he left his house at about 3:20, not just because the vast majority of the reporters in court did not hear him say this but because he would have known that it meant that he would have arrived at Buck's Row at about 3:30am - not something he would have said if he was the killer and not something that have been the case if he was innocent.

[David Orsam]

I just want to correct one thing that has been annoying me - my reference to "London Weekly News" - so here is the corrected list of the 10 reporters identified at the Nichols inquest on 3 Sept 1888:

Reporter A (The Times)
Reporter B (The Star)
Reporter C (Daily News, East London Observer)
Reporter D (Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Evening Standard)
Reporter E (Daily Telegraph, Lloyd's Weekly News, Weekly Dispatch)
Reporter F (The Echo)
Reporter G (Daily Chronicle, Illustrated Police News)
Reporter H (Evening News)
Reporter I (Evening Post)
Reporter J (Globe)

The Holy Grail would be to find a Reporter K.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Nice work.

Could a reporter [K] have been from the Press Association or Central News?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

I compiled a selection of 19 sources that covered the Kelly inquest. Comparing every sentence spoken by each witness (this file is 73 pgs long).
What becomes apparent is that the weekly papers copied the dailies coverage, word for word, which suggests they did not have their own reporter present at the inquest.
Typical dailies like the Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Morning Advertiser, etc., could have had their own reporters present due to the fact their coverage is not identical.
This is one reason we should not take a single preferred source for inquest coverage, but consider several sources to get a better picture of what was said.

[Wickerman]

Interesting..."you are wanted". An officer hearing that would have thought someone sent the men for them. Had they said, "You are needed." it would have meant nearly the same thing, but there's of course a nuanced difference. Yet, a cop hearing one, could quite simply imply the other.

Mike

That is precisely how I see the meaning.

[David Orsam]

Could a reporter [K] have been from the Press Association or Central News?

Hi Simon, it's not absolutely impossible but I suspect that some of the reporters within A-J are, in fact, agency reporters, hence a few of the reports appear in multiple newspapers. Having searched online regional newspapers, the reports I have found all seem to be traceable back to A-J.