The Bucks Row Project Summary Report.

[Batman]

Paul testified as to why he didnt notice much. It was dark. That's it. He thought she was a drunk.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Correct

Thank you for that.

Such denial would be impossible in my suggestion, as the idea for "Another Officer" has not been born when Paul gives his interview later on 31st August.

Well, if it was uttered by Lechmere, then the phrase was born in that second. Together with the possibility to deny it.


However Paul's interview gives an account of the exchanges between the caemen and Mizen, which does not included any thing resembling that of Mizen 3rd September, but is very broadly the same as the account of Lechmere 3rd September.

Oh, it includes a lot of the things that Mizen said, letīs not deny that.

And please don't forget John Neil has already given his testimony 1st Sebtember, it is in reality a combination of events that leads to Jonas Mizen's account at the inquest 3rd September.

Yes, of course. It is to what degree it turned Mizen into a liar that is the question here. To your mind, it did, to my mind, it did not.


Back to the old chestnut of "not within earshot" I see.

Yes, but this time it is you that open up for the possibility by claiming that Mizen lied - he was not likely to do so if Paul was later in place to corroborate Lechmereīs version of events.

Lets put this to bed , there is Absolutly nothing, from any of the 3 participants, not even Mizen himself which gives any credence to this suggestion.

Letīs wake it up instead. There is a number of things that point to it as a possibility, not least how Mizen always spoke of just the one carman contacting and speaking to him.

However lets deal, briefly with your first point.

Ouch - I am being DEALT WITH!

It did not matter, what Paul might say at a later date, indeed when he does appear, the absence of any questioning about the matter is interesting in itself.

Everything about the affair is interesting, Steve. Am I to be fed a little "interpretation" now?

The difference of opinion could reasonably be written off as a mistake, a simply misunderstand, which has been the prevailing position for most of the last 130 years.

... during which time not a soul commented on or understood the explosive power hidden in the words. It was skipped over with little insight or interest. And in such cases, 130 years of failure to pick up on it is nothing to be proud of.

Remember I have said Mizen had not broken the Police Code, legally he had done nothing wrong on the 31st August.

Did you think I had forgotten? Of course I hadnīt.

The aim was to avoid aline of questioning,which had no direct bearing on the murder, this he achived.

Conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conj ...
Oh, but you have EVIDENCE, I forgot that.

[Fisherman]

Paul testified as to why he didnt notice much. It was dark. That's it. He thought she was a drunk.

He could see the hat, black against the dark road. If the abdomen had been exposed, gashed and bloodied, he would have seen that too. Once he found out that she had had her neck cut and her belly opened up, he would naturally envisage a bloody deed, and he would feel pretty silly that he did not make that out. The self-evident excuse that offered itself up to him would be the one he used - it was dark.
It is not as if he knew that she had been cut as he knelt over her on the murder morning, checking whether he could see blood he knew to be there or not, coming up with how this was impossible. He simply concluded in retrospect that the reason he missed it was the darkness. He would not have reasoned that it was probably because the fellow carman had hidden the wounds from sight.

[Fisherman]

You’re flogging a dead horse on this one Colin. Fish has Andy Griffiths who apparently overrides every other opinion.

No, Herlock. I have Andy Griffiths who clearly tells us that the idea that he MUST have run is not a given matter.

It could have been either way, see? And your argument is only interesting if we can be SURE that he would have run, something you seem to like as a suggestion. But unfortunately, it does not work out. Many people think that he may have stayed and bluffed it out by his own choice.

And I donīt need any certainty that he MUST have chosen to do so - I only need the certainty that he could have done so.

And that certainty I do have. And it is nice to see that I share it with Griffiths, since he has all the experience that you donīt have of such matters. Itīs not that he must be right and that you must be wrong - it is that he is more likely to be right, given his experience and insights. A bummer, I know, but there you are.

It is the POSSIBILITY that he may have stayed and bluffed it out that I point to, not how it must have been so. See?

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: And what were the chances of him "running into a PC", Fish? Mizen was pre-occupied with knocking up; I suspect others (and there won't have been that many of them) were similarly engaged.

He could not be sure either way. But he COULD be sure that if he managed to bluff Paul, it would all be a low-key affair, and he would arguably have preferred that. This has been stated thousands of times, Colin.

How does the PC know that there has been a killing? It's only just happened.

It would help if Paul yelled blue murder. How does Lechmere know he wonīt? If he runs, how does he know who the oncomer is and what he/she will do? Correct, he doesnīt. Plus, as has ALSO been said a thousand times, nine out of ten serial killers are psychopaths, and a common psychopathic trait is to lie and play games. They enjoy that.

If something has been discussed many times it means that there are unresolved differences of opinion surely?

Yes. That is why is is discussed. But "unresolved differences of opinion" can have their ground in varying degrees of insight and knowledge. If I tell my dog not to take my catīs food because he is not supposed to, he will disagree with me and do it anyway.
Thatīs not to say that the dog has a standpoint that is intellectually grounded. It only tells us he is hungry and unwilling to adjust to the rules.
If somebody tells me that van Gogh was the Ripper, I will say that he was not. Does that mean that the one claiming that van Gogh was the Ripper will see how he should really not entertain "an unresolved difference of opinion"? Nope, it does not - he will go on arguing he same stupid thing anyway.

Generally, it is the same with any discussion - a disagreement is not always grounded in equal values of the argued points. I just had it argued that Paul and Lechmere BOTH pulled the clothing down on Nichols after Pauls arrival. I said they did not.

Turns out I was right.

[Batman]

He could see the hat, black against the dark road. If the abdomen had been exposed, gashed and bloodied, he would have seen that too.

Geometric shapes (tarpaulin, hats, dresses) can be made out in darkness and are no comparison to details. Coagulated blood will be dark and skin in darkness is dark. What you are claiming is that they would see these details in the dark if they could see at a hat. Obviously not. They didn't have night vision googles on.

JtR kills women in darkness for this reason. That you can't make out what you are seeing without some light. What sort of person can see his victim's then? A PC with a lantern. This was to shock Whitechapel. It's an assault on society.

Diemshutz had the exact same issues. He prodded what he thought was a bag. Even his match didn't reveal enough. He had to get people from the club to come out with a candle to see it was a murdered woman.

He would not have reasoned that it was probably because the fellow carman had hidden the wounds from sight.

That doesn't work with the facts of the Buck's Row find. Cross is in darkness looking at Nichols and Paul is across the street and is avoiding Cross. Cross calls him over and Paul didn't want to go, so obviously Cross did some persuading to get Paul to go over to him... to get a good look at his ugly mug, right?

If Cross murdered Nichols, he has nothing to gain at all by calling over Paul. All he had to do was stand more in the darkness and stop waving around like a peacock to get someone's attention that he has just ripped up a woman.

[Batman]

BTW, Cross says he was 40 yards away from Paul.

That's quite a distance.

https://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/File:Bucks38.jpg

I think it's approximately the distance between the camera and where her body would have been in the above photo.

I can't even make out the people walking towards the camera let alone 40 yards away. Okay, so it's an old film resolution, but it was night when the incident happened.

Paul would have been walking towards the camera from somewhere down the background of the photograph.

JtR had plenty of time to leg it.

[Sam Flynn]

No, Herlock. I have Andy Griffiths who clearly tells us that the idea that he MUST have run is not a given matter.

Anyone could have said that, and just because Andy Griffiths said so doesn't make it any more likely that the killer would have stayed put. Most people, I'd venture, would have run, or walked, away as soon as they sensed Cross was approaching - assuming that they hadn't left the scene already.

I'm sure Andy Griffiths is a fine chap, but he is not a "running-away expert", as no such people exist in the realm of policing or psychology.

[Fisherman]

Anyone could have said that, and just because Andy Griffiths said so doesn't make it any more likely that the killer would have stayed put. Most people, I'd venture, would have run, or walked, away as soon as they sensed Cross was approaching - assuming that they hadn't left the scene already.

I'm sure Andy Griffiths is a fine chap, but he is not a "running-away expert", as no such people exist in the realm of policing or psychology.

I disagree. Andy Griffiths is an ex-murder squad leader and an academic criminologist. He is an expert with a wide experience in the field we are dealing with, and therefore he is - generally speaking - more knowledgeable than most of us.

The whole idea with bringing experts into the issue is to benefit from their ecperience and knowledge. To flat out deny it is uncalled for arrogance.

It is another matter that Griffiths is not in any way certain to be correct. There is room for more than one possible outcome. But claiming that Griffiths is not more qualified than most of us to make educated guesses in this field is wrong. If there is such a thing as a running-away expert, then that is him.

At the end of the day, all we need to take in is that Lechmere must not have run at all. It is that simple. He may have chosen to stay out of his own free will. Whether that is unexpected to some is of no importance at all.

[MrBarnett]

Anyone could have said that, and just because Andy Griffiths said so doesn't make it any more likely that the killer would have stayed put. Most people, I'd venture, would have run, or walked, away as soon as they sensed Cross was approaching - assuming that they hadn't left the scene already.

I'm sure Andy Griffiths is a fine chap, but he is not a "running-away expert", as no such people exist in the realm of policing or psychology.

In fairness, Gareth, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that Griffiths had come across a few examples of criminals staying put at a crime scene and trying to blag there way out of the situation.

I believed Abby Normal posted an example from his own experience. I have one too (which I won't bore you with). Running away isn't a given. One doesn't need to be any kind of an expert to hold that opinion. And when it comes from a man with years (decades?) of experience of the behaviour of criminals it carries more weight than it would coming from Abbey or me.

[Fisherman]

BTW, Cross says he was 40 yards away from Paul.

That's quite a distance.

https://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/File:Bucks38.jpg

I think it's approximately the distance between the camera and where her body would have been in the above photo.

I can't even make out the people walking towards the camera let alone 40 yards away. Okay, so it's an old film resolution, but it was night when the incident happened.

Paul would have been walking towards the camera from somewhere down the background of the photograph.

JtR had plenty of time to leg it.

I donīt think anybody has suggested that Lechmere did not have time to leg it. Personally, I think he had more time than what would be offered by a 40 yard distance.

What is argued here is that not all criminals who have the opportunity must actually do so.

That is rather another matter, Iīm afraid.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, Herlock. I have Andy Griffiths who clearly tells us that the idea that he MUST have run is not a given matter.

It could have been either way, see? And your argument is only interesting if we can be SURE that he would have run, something you seem to like as a suggestion. But unfortunately, it does not work out. Many people think that he may have stayed and bluffed it out by his own choice.

And I donīt need any certainty that he MUST have chosen to do so - I only need the certainty that he could have done so.

And that certainty I do have. And it is nice to see that I share it with Griffiths, since he has all the experience that you donīt have of such matters. Itīs not that he must be right and that you must be wrong - it is that he is more likely to be right, given his experience and insights. A bummer, I know, but there you are.

It is the POSSIBILITY that he may have stayed and bluffed it out that I point to, not how it must have been so. See?

I do see Fish.

Perhaps strange then, that as a former serving detective, you don’t favour Trevor’s opinions over your own,

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Correct

Thank you for that.

Such denial would be impossible in my suggestion, as the idea for "Another Officer" has not been born when Paul gives his interview later on 31st August.

Well, if it was uttered by Lechmere, then the phrase was born in that second. Together with the possibility to deny it.

Please read what is written, "in my suggestion". Which is what we are talking about, my suggestion, backed by evidence.
.

However Paul's interview gives an account of the exchanges between the caemen and Mizen, which does not included any thing resembling that of Mizen 3rd September, but is very broadly the same as the account of Lechmere 3rd September.

Oh, it includes a lot of the things that Mizen said, letīs not deny that.

Indeed it did, but it did not iclude the tale of being wanted by another police officer

And please don't forget John Neil has already given his testimony 1st Sebtember, it is in reality a combination of events that leads to Jonas Mizen's account at the inquest 3rd September.

Yes, of course. It is to what degree it turned Mizen into a liar that is the question here. To your mind, it did, to my mind, it did not.

To say it turned him into a liar, almost portrays him as being someone who never told an untruth, he needed to be "turned..... into a liar".

Back to the old chestnut of "not within earshot" I see.

Yes, but this time it is you that open up for the possibility by claiming that Mizen lied - he was not likely to do so if Paul was later in place to corroborate Lechmereīs version of events.

Not knowing the argument, it is presumptive to suggest he would not tell an untruth, one which would have no actual bearing on the business of the inquest.

Lets put this to bed , there is Absolutly nothing, from any of the 3 participants, not even Mizen himself which gives any credence to this suggestion.

Letīs wake it up instead. There is a number of things that point to it as a possibility, not least how Mizen always spoke of just the one carman contacting and speaking to him.

No lets not.
Both Carmen say they spoke to Mizen, and as you rightly pointed out above Paul's Lloyds Statement "includes a lot of the things that Mizen said, letīs not deny that". That suggests his within "earshot".
It really is bedtime for this particular flight of fancy.

However lets deal, briefly with your first point.

Ouch - I am being DEALT WITH!

It means to give attention to the first point, how funny you are!

It did not matter, what Paul might say at a later date, indeed when he does appear, the absence of any questioning about the matter is interesting in itself.

Everything about the affair is interesting, Steve. Am I to be fed a little "interpretation" now?

Somethings are more intersting than others, not to ask a question to resolve an earlier unresolved issue requires a reason for that non question.

The reason may be simply: the issue is not important to the business of the Inquest, or it may be more complicted. All possibilities need to be considered and assessed.

The difference of opinion could reasonably be written off as a mistake, a simply misunderstand, which has been the prevailing position for most of the last 130 years.

... during which time not a soul commented on or understood the explosive power hidden in the words. It was skipped over with little insight or interest. And in such cases, 130 years of failure to pick up on it is nothing to be proud of.

Indeed the Possible truth does appear to have been overlooked, but maybe not as you beleive.
Maybe it is explosive, maybe its not.
Who is to say? Who is correct? Certainly not you or I.

Remember I have said Mizen had not broken the Police Code, legally he had done nothing wrong on the 31st August.

Did you think I had forgotten? Of course I hadnīt.

The aim was to avoid aline of questioning,which had no direct bearing on the murder, this he achived.

Conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conjecture warning - conj ...
Oh, but you have EVIDENCE, I forgot that.

The evidence is there, you may not agree with it.
However there is far more evidence to support the version I propose than the account given at the inquest on the 3rd by Jonas Mizen.



Steve

[Fisherman]

Geometric shapes (tarpaulin, hats, dresses) can be made out in darkness and are no comparison to details. Coagulated blood will be dark and skin in darkness is dark. What you are claiming is that they would see these details in the dark if they could see at a hat. Obviously not. They didn't have night vision googles on.

JtR kills women in darkness for this reason. That you can't make out what you are seeing without some light. What sort of person can see his victim's then? A PC with a lantern. This was to shock Whitechapel. It's an assault on society.

Diemshutz had the exact same issues. He prodded what he thought was a bag. Even his match didn't reveal enough. He had to get people from the club to come out with a candle to see it was a murdered woman.



That doesn't work with the facts of the Buck's Row find. Cross is in darkness looking at Nichols and Paul is across the street and is avoiding Cross. Cross calls him over and Paul didn't want to go, so obviously Cross did some persuading to get Paul to go over to him... to get a good look at his ugly mug, right?

If Cross murdered Nichols, he has nothing to gain at all by calling over Paul. All he had to do was stand more in the darkness and stop waving around like a peacock to get someone's attention that he has just ripped up a woman.

Bright colours will become less dark in darkness than dark colours. You may want to start out there. And yes, if they could see a hat, then the visibility would more than well allow for seeing blood on white skin. It is CONTRAST that allows us to differentiate.
Saying that blood and skin are both dark is not a clever thing to do.

Diemschutz did not have the exact same issues. Lechmere saw the body from across the street, while Diemschutz could hardly see the body at all, even when quite close to it.

That is because there are degrees of darkness, and degrees of vision, Batman.

Lechmere did not have to attract Pauls attention? No, he did not. But I am reasoning that he had CHOSEN to do so before he even saw him. That is wht he took care to hide the wounds.
You may perhaps not realize it, but if Lechmere was the killer, he would benefit hugely from hooking up with Paul when leaving the scene. Two men walking calmly together to work are much less likely to be seen as suspicious than just the one doing a runner.

One, two, three - itīs useful to think in steps and not oversimplify. Peacocks or not.

[Batman]

I donīt think anybody has suggested that Lechmere did not have time to leg it. Personally, I think he had more time than what would be offered by a 40 yard distance.

What is argued here is that not all criminals who have the opportunity must actually do so.

That is rather another matter, Iīm afraid.

Legging it in front of a police officer probably won't be the smartest thing to do, but Paul isn't a police officer. So I am thinking the 'not legging it' has probably more to do with being seen by police than hanging around to chat with the next passerby who is 40 yards away in the dark.