The Nature of Evidence

[caz]

Hi Henry
I appreciate the invite, but I'm a cult of one.

I'm a cult too!

At least I think that's what Fish calls me.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi All,

So what do we KNOW?

We know PC Neil originally assumed he had been the first to discover Nichols lying in Buck's Row.

We know he was subsequently informed that someone else had got there first, but it's not clear to me how or when this was confirmed to his satisfaction.

PC Neil may have read, or heard about Paul's scathing newspaper interview; or he may have heard that someone called Cross had reported finding the woman. But arguably he'd have needed PC Mizen's input to convince him this was not just a couple of blokes getting in on the act to have a dig at the police.

It does seem as if Fish has been assuming stuff prematurely, using sources that almost certainly could not have given him the full picture.

In short, Fish appears to have no idea when Cross first contacted the police after the news broke that Nichols had been found [by PC Neil] foully murdered.

I'm really looking forward to reading Steve's analysis on this one.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The Third Man?

In fact, I'd like to propose PC Neil as a likelier suspect. After all, when Cross and Paul examined Nichols there was no blood to see, no injuries apparent and no obvious signs of violence. She would have felt cold to the touch if she had collapsed drunk on the pavement some time previously and fallen into a deep sleep. But soon after PC Neil arrived he was 'found' with a 'freshly killed' woman who had sustained fearful wounds and nearly been decapitated. How could two men have failed to notice any of this, even in the darkness, when they had been up close and personal to the victim just minutes before?

Had PC Neil not been a copper, but just a third man on his way to work that morning, striking a match to get a better look at Nichols, he'd have been the one getting all the grief now.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick
I don't know if it would even be a list though. The only ones I can think of are the soldier that was with Tabram and blotchy.

What about "Pipeman" (35 ht. 5 ft 11in. comp. fresh, hair light brown, moustache brown, dress dark overcoat, old black hard felt hat wide brim, had a clay pipe in his hand)? How about the man who shouted "Lipski" at Schwartz (age about 30, 5ft 5in, complexion fair, dark hair, small brown moustache, full face, broad shouldered, dress, dark jacket, trousers black, cap with a peak, nothing in his hand)?

What about the man Lawende saw - likely Eddowes' killer - at the corner of Church Passage (Age 30 ht. 5 ft. 7 or 8 in. comp. fair, fair moustache, medium build, dress pepper & salt colour loose jacket, grey cloth cap with peak of same colour, reddish handkerchief tied in a knot, round neck, appearance of a sailor)?

You mentioned Blotchy. What about Mr. Astrakhan (34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance.)?

What about the man J. Best saw with Stride outside the Bricklayer's Arms (5ft 5ins. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit and coat. He sported a thick, black moustache, but was otherwise clean shaved. He also did not have any eyelashes)?

What about the man seen by Fanny Mortimer (young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked up at the club, and then went round the corner by the Board School)?

How about Elizabeth Long's man (over 40, and appeared to be a little taller than deceased. He appeared to be a foreigner, and had a 'shabby genteel' appearance. Witness could hear them talking loudly, and she overheard him say to the woman, "Will you?" to which she replied, "Yes.")?

Patrick Mulshaw's man, who told him, ""Watchman, old man, I believe somebody is murdered down the street". Who was he?

Cross wasn't identified at all. Yet, we're to believe he had such faith the Met would find him that he was flushed out by Paul's Lloyd's statement?

[Harry D]

What about the man seen by Fanny Mortimer (young man carrying a black shiny bag, who walked very fast down the street from the Commercial-road. He looked

Didn't that turn out to be Leon Goldstein?

[Patrick S]

Didn't that turn out to be Leon Goldstein?

It was, actually. I included him to make this point: What did Goldstein do when he read about himself in the paper? Basically the same thing Cross did. So, was Goldstein a psychopath or simply a witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The man with a bag full of empty cigarette boxes! Unimportant but I wonder what he was doing with them?

Regards
Herlock

[Patrick S]

The man with a bag full of empty cigarette boxes! Unimportant but I wonder what he was doing with them?

Regards
Herlock

Transporting uteri?

[caz]

Murderer! He must have given all those lethal cigarettes to his victims, who choked to death.

And Goldstein must have been another alias. He was too smart to use Cross a second time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

Patrick

Been rereading some posts you did on the Mizen scam end of last year.

Agree with much of your proposal. The main rebuttal/ counter argument was from David and I can see his reasoning and at the time agreed with him.
However I believe we can now make a case, rather than just a largely unsupported suggestion, that he showed no urgency at all following his meeting with the Carmen. This comes from anyalysising the sources of several individuals.

However one stumbling block as seen by David was why use the call by another officer to excuse a slow response from Mizen, such made little sense.
That however was not the major issue he was attempting to cover in my view. And it was covered almost completely.


Looking forward to talking to you about it in a week or so.



Steve

[Harry D]

It was, actually. I included him to make this point: What did Goldstein do when he read about himself in the paper? Basically the same thing Cross did. So, was Goldstein a psychopath or simply a witness?

Good point. And he did pass the scene of the crime at the estimated TOD.

[Patrick S]

Patrick

Been rereading some posts you did on the Mizen scam end of last year.

Agree with much of your proposal. The main rebuttal/ counter argument was from David and I can see his reasoning and at the time agreed with him.
However I believe we can now make a case, rather than just a largely unsupported suggestion, that he showed no urgency at all following his meeting with the Carmen. This comes from anyalysising the sources of several individuals.

However one stumbling block as seen by David was why use the call by another officer to excuse a slow response from Mizen, such made little sense.
That however was not the major issue he was attempting to cover in my view. And it was covered almost completely.


Looking forward to talking to you about it in a week or so.



Steve

Hey, Steve. I don't disagree that Mizen using the pretense of the presence of an officer in Buck's Row to excuse his response (as described by Paul in Lloyd's) makes - on its face - little sense. That is to say, it's not something one might come up with off the top of one's head. But, when compared - side by side, so to speak - with what Christer asks us to believe with respect to Cross' actions in Buck's Row (approaching Paul, asking him to come see, going off in search of a PC) and in the "Mizen Scam" in Baker's Row, it seems infinitely more plausible.

First, we are not required to believe that Mizen arrived at the idea "off the top of his head". We need only consider the possibility that he may have read Paul's statement in Lloyd's on Sunday the 2nd, and fashioned his narrative by the time he testified at the inquest on Monday the 3rd.

Conversely, we must believe it plausible that Cross saw his unconventional path to freedom clearly and instantly, as it unfolded, perfectly orchestrating it in real-time by: discerning it better to wait for Paul to reach him rather than simply walk away into the darkness; not allowing Paul to avoid him as he wished to, but tapping his shoulder and calling his attention to Nichols lying on the ground; agreeing to continue on with Paul rather than go off alone in a different direction; within in minutes (or on the fly) conceiving of the "scam" and springing it on Mizen, knowing that by telling him he was "wanted by a policeman in Buck's Row" that Mizen would consider him "cleared", thus he wouldn't be subjected to the scrutiny of Mizen's lamp, he wouldn't forced to return to Buck's Row, thus having his lie exposed, he wouldn't be asked his name, he would not be searched, thus the murder weapon - still on his person - would not found, and he'd be allowed to continue on his way to work free, unsuspected (only to appear voluntarily at the inquest on Monday) because of Paul's "remarkable statement" (?).

So, now we must look at what Paul said in Lloyd's. We must ask who Paul is critical of? Cross or Mizen? Who's actions were called a "great shame"? Who's actions required defending to his superiors? To the public?

Finally, we must ask ourselves this: Do we - in order to subscribe to all this view Mizen as a paragon of honesty because he's a serving PC, thus he'd never take the risk of telling falsehoods at the inquest? Even in light of the fact that we have very good reason to believe that another PC did just that in his testimony in the Nichols' inquest?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Transporting uteri?

Mouse uteri?

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Murderer! He must have given all those lethal cigarettes to his victims, who choked to death.

And Goldstein must have been another alias. He was too smart to use Cross a second time.

Love,

Caz
X

At last! Someone's on the right track!

Regards
Herlock

[Harry D]

The man with a bag full of empty cigarette boxes! Unimportant but I wonder what he was doing with them?

Regards
Herlock

Well, he wasn't going to bring his offal bag to the cop-shop, was he?