The Nature of Evidence

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Caz. It's obvious from Paul's evidence that when Cross walked towards him he wasn't thinking that the stranger's intent was innocent, i.e. to introduce himself to a fellow commuter or to ask directions. More likely, he was in fear of his life!

agree-which is odd that lech approached him like that!

[Abby Normal]

Given that Cross' walk to work extended over half a mile beyond Paul's own, they would normally be separated by a good 10 minutes, probably more, on their daily commute - assuming, that is, that they both had to start work at the same time, took the same route and walked at the same speed.

so why did paul come upon lech within seconds or even a minute that lech hesitated?

[Patrick S]

not really, since he could have called him over.

and I find it odd he waited for paul to get close, and as paul tries to avoid him he goes to him and taps his shoulder before he says anything. you don't find either strange?

No. Why is it odd that he waited? The thing he wanted Paul to see was near where he was standing. You would have expected him to go toward Paul and accompany him back to the spot on which he stood? To see, as you suggested, what was more likely to have been someone asleep or drunk than someone "freshly killed" by Jack the Ripper?

And I would only find the fact that he touched Paul odd if he had actually killed Nichols. Paul tried to avoid him but Cross wouldn't allow him to. He was "raising the alarm", was he not? Wouldn't his allowing Paul to continue on his way constitute NOT "raising the alarm"? Further, if he'd killed Nichols, WHY would he NOT allow Paul to go on his way? Why FORCE the man to see his victim and then accompany him on his errand to find a POLICEMAN to tell all about it? You don't find THAT odd?

[Patrick S]

agree-which is odd that lech approached him like that!

Approached him like what? Paul didn't say that Cross approached him in an aggressive or threatening way. What he said was:

"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."

Clearly his concerns were due to the "dangerous character of the locality", not the "dangerous character" of Charles Cross.

[Joshua Rogan]

so why did paul come upon lech within seconds or even a minute that lech hesitated?

Well obviously Cross spent the ten minutes finding, killing and mutilating (not necessarily in that order) Nichols.
Or perhaps Paul, being late, decided to risk taking a shorter but potentially more dangerous route that day?
Or just maybe, since both carmen said they were behind time, Cross was running even later than Paul?

[Joshua Rogan]

To my thinking, Paul's seeming frustration toward the police was perhaps informed by his perception that Mizen's reaction was not - as far as he was concerned - appropriate. However, I think it's also possible that he was echoing an overall sense of anger that was present among many in the area. Anger stirred by media reports critical of the police and their handling of previous, seemingly connected crimes. While “Polly” Nichols is generally considered to have been the first victim of “Jack the Ripper”, there had already been several unsolved crimes that had the police under heightened scrutiny.

I can't disagree with any of that. But if you require an urgent response, you really need to deliver the message in the same fashion. If Cross and Paul had been gabbling breathlessly and gesticulating wildly - which certainly doesn't come across from the evidence of either carman - I've no doubt Mizen's reaction would have been very different. So if I was in Paul's shoes, I'd be asking myself whether I'd sufficiently commumicated the urgency of the situation.

[Patrick S]

I can't disagree with any of that. But if you require an urgent response, you really need to deliver the message in the same fashion. If Cross and Paul had been gabbling breathlessly and gesticulating wildly - which certainly doesn't come across from the evidence of either carman - I've no doubt Mizen's reaction would have been very different. So if I was in Paul's shoes, I'd be asking myself whether I'd sufficiently commumicated the urgency of the situation.

I've said this before. All things considered, I don't think that Mizen's reaction was damnable. After all, I'm certain that Mizen, along with every PC working the East End, found far more people passed out/asleep than they did murdered people ("freshly" or otherwise). I think that - after it had been discovered that Nichols was dead, murdered, "ripped" - both Mizen and the Met came to wish he'd reacted differently, especially after Paul's "Remarkable Statement" appeared in Lloyd's.

[Fisherman]

Approached him like what? Paul didn't say that Cross approached him in an aggressive or threatening way. What he said was:

"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."

Clearly his concerns were due to the "dangerous character of the locality", not the "dangerous character" of Charles Cross.

I don´t think that the locality as such is what will jump you and mug you, Patrick - it is the PEOPLE in the locality. So in fact, if Paul was concerned abot anything, it was that Lechmere may be a representative of those people.

We can of course have this partly confirmed by reading what Lechmere himself said: "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."

[Fisherman]

I will make a few remarks since I have - with a fair measure of incredulity - read the posts on this thread.

Let´s begin with Harry, who, commended on his effort by Herlock Sholmes, posted this:

"One misconception is that Cross must be considered a suspect simply because he was at the crime scene.In my opinion,that is not so.While his own admission puts him at the crime scene,no evidence of an incriminating nature,connects him to the crime.They are separate issues.They each require their own particular proofs."

It is extremely odd that posters will go on claiming these kinds of things on my behalf. I have repeatedly stated that there is nothing at all incriminating in finding a victim - just as is often stated out here, somebody has to.

What happens if you find a victim in the kind of circumstances we have in this case, where the finder fits the overall time scheme and may therefore have been the killer, is that the finder immediately becomes a "person of interest".
After that, it is the developments of the case that governs if the finder will become a suspect.
If he can be cleared, he is written of the list of possible suspects.
If he cannot, he remains a potential suspect, and the police will take a very close look at him if there is no other suspect at hand.
If information should surface during this investigation that points in his way, in the shape of factual information or of him lying, chances are he will turn into an outright suspect.
I submit that the victorian police should have investigated him, but I also submit that this was never done, and I suspect it owes to how he came forward on bis own account.

What remains, and what I would very dearly want respected is that nobody is saying that finding a victim is suspicious per se.

If evidence surfaces that points in your way, however, then having been found with the victim does not help your cause, and will certainly be used by the prosecution should there be a court case.

In hope this clears this misconception up once and for all.

[Patrick S]

I don´t think that the locality as such is what will jump you and mug you, Patrick - it is the PEOPLE in the locality. So in fact, if Paul was concerned abot anything, it was that Lechmere may be a representative of those people.

We can of course have this partly confirmed by reading what Lechmere himself said: "He stepped back and waited for the newcomer, who started on one side, as if he feared that the witness meant to knock him down."

That (partly) confirms what, exactly?

It's pretty simple. Paul felt it was a bad part of town. Thus, people were wise to be "on their guard" because people had been "knocked down ON THAT SPOT".

Do you contend that Cross was in some deranged state, thus he frightened poor Paul, only to ease his fears by demonstrating he was the nicest sort of psychopath, and he just wanted to show him his victim and then run off with him to find a policeman?

[Fisherman]

Steve post as an example of misleading how somebody (presumably I?) have said that Neil found Nichols within two minutes after she was left by the carmen.

Maybe I have said such a thing in a generalized manner, but I certainly have also made it clear in many posts that I think that is too short an interval of time.
Why Steve chose not to present those posts, I have no idea, but it remains that the carmen cannot reasonably have made it from the murder spot to the end of Bucks Row in only a minute, and after that, Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot.
So there will be a longer period of time.

I don´t think it means anything much in terms of Lechmeres viability as the murderer, at any rate.

[Patrick S]

I will make a few remarks since I have - with a fair measure of incredulity - read the posts on this thread.

Let´s begin with Harry, who, commended on his effort by Herlock Sholmes, posted this:

"One misconception is that Cross must be considered a suspect simply because he was at the crime scene.In my opinion,that is not so.While his own admission puts him at the crime scene,no evidence of an incriminating nature,connects him to the crime.They are separate issues.They each require their own particular proofs."

It is extremely odd that posters will go on claiming these kinds of things on my behalf. I have repeatedly stated that there is nothing at all incriminating in finding a victim - just as is often stated out here, somebody has to.

What happens if you find a victim in the kind of circumstances we have in this case, where the finder fits the overall time scheme and may therefore have been the killer, is that the finder immediately becomes a "person of interest".
After that, it is the developments of the case that governs if the finder will become a suspect.
If he can be cleared, he is written of the list of possible suspects.
If he cannot, he remains a potential suspect, and the police will take a very close look at him if there is no other suspect at hand.
If information should surface during this investigation that points in his way, in the shape of factual information or of him lying, chances are he will turn into an outright suspect.
I submit that the victorian police should have investigated him, but I also submit that this was never done, and I suspect it owes to how he came forward on bis own account.

What remains, and what I would very dearly want respected is that nobody is saying that finding a victim is suspicious per se.

If evidence surfaces that points in your way, however, then having been found with the victim does not help your cause, and will certainly be used by the prosecution should there be a court case.

In hope this clears this misconception up once and for all.

Let this stand as a disclaimer to several of your acolytes that continue posting about the nefariousness of having been found near a "freshly killed" (God...I love that term) corpse.

[Fisherman]

Abby´s point, though shunned by some posters, is of course a very good one.

If Lechmere had been a whole minute in front of Paul, he should reasonably have been tending to the woman as Paul arrived.

If Lechmere had been only ten seconds in front of Paul, the latter should have seen the former step out into then street.

Instead, Paul arrives in the exact moment when Lechmere has stepped out into the street, thinking he was seeing a tarpaulin, and halting when he realized that it was instead a woman.

I think it stands to reason to say that Lechmere would not have made a longish halt out in the middle of the street, but instead one of a few seconds only, to reinterpret what he saw. After that, if Paul did not arrive, he would either have decided to leave the woman and walk on, or he would have walked over to her to see if he could help out in any way. You don´t remain standing for a minute or two in the middle of the street, and indeed, Lechmere himself says that it was when he had stepped out into the street and stopped that he heard Paul approaching from thirty, forty yards away.

So it is an almighty coincidence that Paul arrived precisely in those few seconds, Abby is correct on that score. And it remains a mystery that Paul did not notice Lechmere walking in front of him before that.

I also concur that Lechmere acted oddly at the site, but as Patrick pointed out, Andy Griffiths did not see anything odd about it, and I can buy that. After that, one can of course talk about how it is interesting that Patrick accepts what Griffiths says in this case, while disbeliving him on other matters...

[Patrick S]

Abby´s point, though shunned by some posters, is of course a very good one.

If Lechmere had been a whole minute in front of Paul, he should reasonably have been tending to the woman as Paul arrived.

If Lechmere had been only ten seconds in front of Paul, the latter should have seen the former step out into then street.

Instead, Paul arrives in the exact moment when Lechmere has stepped out into the street, thinking he was seeing a tarpaulin, and halting when he realized that it was instead a woman.

I think it stands to reason to say that Lechmere would not have made a longish halt out in the middle of the street, but instead one of a few seconds only, to reinterpret what he saw. After that, if Paul did not arrive, he would either have decided to leave the woman and walk on, or he would have walked over to her to see if he could help out in any way. You don´t remain standing for a minute or two in the middle of the street, and indeed, Lechmere himself says that it was when he had stepped out into the street and stopped that he heard Paul approaching from thirty, forty yards away.

So it is an almighty coincidence that Paul arrived precisely in those few seconds, Abby is correct on that score. And it remains a mystery that Paul did not notice Lechmere walking in front of him before that.

I also concur that Lechmere acted oddly at the site, but as Patrick pointed out, Andy Griffiths did not see anything odd about it, and I can buy that. After that, one can of course talk about how it is interesting that Patrick accepts what Griffiths says in this case, while disbeliving him on other matters...

Patrick did what? Check again.

[Fisherman]

Caz´ point about how Lechmere´s innocence is proven by how he would never have made up the story about the tarpaulin is the comic relief of the thread so far. The mere suggestion is VERY odd, to say the least.

To begin with, the scenario with Lechmere as the killer involves him concocting a complicated and intelligent lie about an extra PC, and he does that on his feet, no problems at all.

So I don´t think we should underestimate him on this point.

Moreover, when he went to thenpolice he had had a lot of time to ponder what to tell them, if he was the killer. And he would be very aware of what Paul had said in his paper interview - that he had seen Lechmere standing where the body was. Standing, not helping.

Reasonably, he would realize that this was a question tht may well surface: Why were you just standing there, why did you not help the woman?

Let´s reason theoretically that he saw that it was a woman on the pavement from the outset, that there never was any idea on his behalf that it was a tarpaulin.
Would he in such a case walk out into the street, and then stop short in the middle of it, doing nothing? Not very likely, is it?

So he would have needed an explanation for why he stopped and stood still, and I beleive that this is where the tarpaulin story becomes useful.

To claim that he would not have been able to make it up, to try and lead on that it guarantees innocence, and not least to use this very weak idea as a reason to once again say that it is a shame that we are allowed to portray Lechmere as the killer, is nothing short of appalling.