Favorite suspect/s?

[Sam Flynn]

So who was with Lechmere as he found the body, Gareth?

Paul, by all accounts. Except yours, and you weren't there.

[Fisherman]

But Cross didn't find the body "alone" and, at least as far as the other finder's testimony is concerned, he was standing further away from the body than Davis, Dymshitz, Watkins or even perhaps Bowyer, at the time.

So who was with Lechmere as he found the body, Gareth?

[caz]

I have to agree with you and Abby that this is most likely. Whether or not Mizen set off thinking he was being summoned by a policeman, the moment he reached the end of White's Row he was indeed summoned by Neil flashing his lantern, which would have planted/reinforced the impression.

Could Mizen have thought, after Paul's account was published, that he might be asked why he had left his beat on the sole word of two workmen whose details he had failed to take? Would it not have helped him to add that he understood he was wanted by a fellow officer [which was technically true as he was immediately sent for the ambulance], even if this later appeared to have been a minor misunderstanding? He'd have covered himself, wouldn't he?

After all, Mizen quickly appreciated, if he hadn't done initially, that both men had been at the scene of a brutal murder [not long after the brutal murder of Tabram] and he had let them go on their way without asking a single question. The only response we have from him is "All right", isn't it? If neither carman had gone to the papers or come forward voluntarily, I'm not sure if or when Mizen would have dared mention the encounter, because if he did they would both instantly be treated as persons of interest, but with bugger all to go on regarding their identities, movements or current whereabouts!

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Much as it is true that somebody has to find a body, I think it is not a very wise thing to do to regard these finders as certain cases of innocence if they find that body alone and at a time when the victim was quite possibly still alive, but with damage that would bleed the body out over a relatively short period of time.
When such things happen, any policeman with a little something behind his skull bone should accept that unless a perpetrator is found, it is of the essence to look closely into the original "finder".

It is not as trivial and undramatic a role as you seem to imagine (or want to imagine) under these circumstances.

As it doesn’t indicate guilt that a killer should be so humongously stupid as to murder a woman at the very spot that he passed, possibly only with one other person, at the same time, six days a week.

[Elamarna]

simply put el-all the other witnesses who discovered the body were first seen raising the alarm.

Lech is the only one seen near the body before he did. right at that moment-even if completely innocent, I find it odd.

Abby

Sorry but that just makes no sense to me.

If he is only 30-40 seconds ahead of Paul of course he will be seen near the body before he raises the alarm. Its not odd, it is just factual what must happen.

In no other case is there a 2nd person that close and in direct line of sight.

If however Lech was there even a full minute before Paul, the statement makes sense.
As it stands its just illogical.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Lech is the only one seen near the body before he did. right at that moment-even if completely innocent, I find it odd.

Firstly, he was seen standing in the road, not exactly near the body. Secondly, as I said above, we can hardly hold it against Cross if someone else, who just happened to use the same commuting route, was passing by.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I don't understand this "before he raised the alarm"?

Tbis is tbe only murder in which there are two people (Lech and Paul) who appear to be less than a minute apart when a body is discovered.

For the sake of debate lets accept they are only 30-40 seconds apart, and Lechmere is not there earlier. In that case he raises the alarm with Paul, the closest person.

It's only an issue if Lechmere is proven to have been there for a number of minutes before Paul. Such has not been Proven. It is certainly suggested this occurred, but this is entirely dependent on Paul's arriving at exactly 3.45.

This is of course disputed by 3 seperate Police Officers. All of whom under oath say such cannot have been the case.
The balance of probabilities suggest that Paul is incorrect about his 3.45.

His not raising the alarm is therefore only significant if it can be established that Paul is correct, and the 3 Police are not.


Cheers


Steve

simply put el-all the other witnesses who discovered the body were first seen raising the alarm.

Lech is the only one seen near the body before he did. right at that moment-even if completely innocent, I find it odd.

[Abby Normal]

Because there was nobody else who happened to pass by, and the bodies they found weren't on anybody's route to work. We can hardly hold that against Cross.Actually, we don't know that, because we have little biographical information on them, except perhaps for Dymshitz, whom we know got in trouble with the law on another occasion. Besides, as I see it, there are no material discrepancies or red flags pertaining to Cross, apart from the heavily-interpreted ones promoted by Fisherman etc.

Hi Sam
The only witnesses who were near the victims close to time of death and have red flags ( discrepencies/possible suspicious behavior) is Hutch, lech and Richardson. they may not be red flags to you, and may have innocent explanations...yet they have to be accounted for. none of the other witnesses come close to rising to this criteria.

[Sam Flynn]

None of them were seen near the body of a victim before they had raised the alarm

Because there was nobody else who happened to pass by, and the bodies they found weren't on anybody's route to work. We can hardly hold that against Cross.

And none have other discrepencies and possible red flags.

Actually, we don't know that, because we have little biographical information on them, except perhaps for Dymshitz, whom we know got in trouble with the law on another occasion. Besides, as I see it, there are no material discrepancies or red flags pertaining to Cross, apart from the heavily-interpreted ones promoted by Fisherman etc.

[Elamarna]

None of them were seen near the body of a victim before they had raised the alarm. And none have other discrepencies and possible red flags.

Hi Abby,

I don't understand this "before he raised the alarm"?

Tbis is tbe only murder in which there are two people (Lech and Paul) who appear to be less than a minute apart when a body is discovered.

For the sake of debate lets accept they are only 30-40 seconds apart, and Lechmere is not there earlier. In that case he raises the alarm with Paul, the closest person.

It's only an issue if Lechmere is proven to have been there for a number of minutes before Paul. Such has not been Proven. It is certainly suggested this occurred, but this is entirely dependent on Paul's arriving at exactly 3.45.

This is of course disputed by 3 seperate Police Officers. All of whom under oath say such cannot have been the case.
The balance of probabilities suggest that Paul is incorrect about his 3.45.

His not raising the alarm is therefore only significant if it can be established that Paul is correct, and the 3 Police are not.


Cheers


Steve

[Jon Guy]

None of them were seen near the body of a victim before they had raised the alarm. And none have other discrepencies and possible red flags.

Exactly Abby.
Cross was seen doing nothing suspicious by Paul, but the others could have been doing anything with the body, dead or alive.

[Abby Normal]

Everyone does realize that if you think paul was never out of ear shot, then another explanation to the your wanted by a pc discrepency, is that paul heard lech say it and simply never said anything about it. Actually this goes for you too fish.

The more i think about it the more i think this is what could have happened, after a simple misunderstanding of course.

[Abby Normal]

It would only take someone to nominate Davis, Dymshitz, Watkins, Bowyer (etc) as a suspect, and they'd meet that criterion, too. Cross is only a suspect because he's been turned into one.

None of them were seen near the body of a victim before they had raised the alarm. And none have other discrepencies and possible red flags.

[Sam Flynn]

But Cross didn't find the body "alone" and, at least as far as the other finder's testimony is concerned, he was standing further away from the body than Davis, Dymshitz, Watkins or even perhaps Bowyer, at the time.

[Fisherman]

Yup, and that doesn't negate Herlock's point, either.

Much as it is true that somebody has to find a body, I think it is not a very wise thing to do to regard these finders as certain cases of innocence if they find that body alone and at a time when the victim was quite possibly still alive, but with damage that would bleed the body out over a relatively short period of time.
When such things happen, any policeman with a little something behind his skull bone should accept that unless a perpetrator is found, it is of the essence to look closely into the original "finder".

It is not as trivial and undramatic a role as you seem to imagine (or want to imagine) under these circumstances.