The Nature of Evidence

[Pierre]

knowing you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

A step certainly never to be hoped for in the case of Fisherman and his Lechmere idea.

[Elamarna]

Itīs in a report or article. I have not the inclination to look for it now, though.
It is mirrored in Casebooks article on Neil:

PC Neil discovered the body of Mary Ann Nichols whilst on beat duty at approximately 3.45am, 31st August 1888. He had walked from Thomas Street into Buck's Row and was heading eastwards towards Brady Street. Hearing PC John Thain walking along Brady Street, he summoned him with his lamp and later, he was joined by PC Jonas Mizen who had been alerted to the discovery of Nichols' body by the carmen Charles Cross and Robert Paul. It is likely that Neil missed Cross and Paul by minutes and testified that he saw nobody about. The furthest he had been from the murder spot all night was Baker's Row.

Ah, here it is:

The facts are that Constable John Neil was walking down Bucks-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, about a quarter to four o'clock this morning, when he discovered a woman between 35 and 40 years of age lying at the side of the street with her throat cut right open from ear to ear, the instrument with which the deed was done traversing the throat from left to right. The wound was about two inches wide, and blood was flowing profusely. She was discovered to be lying in a pool of blood.

(Evening News, 31 August)

Thanks for clarifying about the two minute matter.

I think that we will find that may be giving the direction. A beat was quoted in the Echo I think September 18 ( may be out on date) the article gives all the local beats since the start of August.
The distance involved fit very nicely to a 30 minute beat at regulation pace.
However he could double back from Queen Ann to Thomas but it makes no logic If he did.
Which ever it makes little difference to when Neil arrives.
I will fully discussing Neil's beat in part 3. The research on the beat has been particularly rewarding, it seems there are almost as many suggestions for it as suspects. Seems most missed the Echo article.

Steve

Update sorry it was the Echo of the 21st not 18th.

[John G]

It was always an uncertain business, but it was to a large degree based on observations made in many a case. In the Chapman case, itīs either Phillipsī "at least two hours, probably more" or less than an hour, and so I am going with the doc, no qualms. I feel pretty certain, not that it was three hours, but that it was NOT less than one. And that rules out Long and Cadosh.

Except Dr Phillips' estimates are virtually worthless. Thus, he estimated time of death by temperature. However, post mortem fall of body temperature is due to four factors:

Ambient conditions (temperature, wind, rain, cooling medium)

Weight of the body, mass: surface area ratio.

Posture of the body (extended or thighs flexed at the abdomen.)

Clothing/coverings.

Did he take all of these factors into account? Even if he did it wouldn't mean very much because he wouldn't then have applied the modern Nomogram method-the current gold standard- which involves a series of complex calculations, involving the use of computer technology and Newtonian physics.

And guess what? Even if he'd been able to his estimate wouldn't have been that accurate: this is the most reliable and well researched method available to modern science, but even in the most favourable case the resulting time since death range is still plus or minus 2.8 hours about the mean value. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

[Elamarna]

Abbyīs 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.

Why not suggest the time suggested by the sources? About 30 seconds give or take 5 seconds rather than the two extremes you use.?

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 donīt 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.

Actually we have no idea when Paul first sees Lechmere. He does not say.

Steve

[GUT]

A step certainly never to be hoped for in the case of Fisherman and his Lechmere idea.

At least Fish has disclosed his theory.

Not like someone who trumpeted that they needed but on bit of data to solve the whole thing.

Gee didn't they also say if they didn't solve it within a year they'd leave and not bother us anymore

[Herlock Sholmes]

Abbyīs 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.

CL arrives. Looks over. Sees what he thinks is a tarpaulin. Maybe looks for 5 or 10 seconds because of the gloom. Goes a bit closer and has a better look. Another 10 seconds passes. That's 20 or 25 seconds from the minutes gap that you just mentioned giving 35-40 seconds. CL hears Paul about 40 yards away. No mystery.

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

But he wasn't 10 seconds in front.

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.


You really do sound like a JFK conspiracy theorist here. So what? That's when he arrives. There is just no mystery here unless you invent one. I arrived at my mother's house the other day at exactly the same time as my brother. Remarkable! Couldn't have been a coincidence!

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 donīt 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.

'Longish halt?' This was Bucks Row, not the autobahn.

'After that, if Paul did not arrive....' CL would never have been mentioned as a suspect.

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.

It's a mystery that Paul, walking just out of earshot (proven by the fact that CL didn't hear him as soon as he saw Nichols) along an ill-lit Whitechapel back street, possibly with his head down or just looking at the pavement a few yards ahead or to his left or right, wishing that he was still in bed, didn't see CL. It's not even mildly surprising!

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...

CL didn't act oddly at any time during the whole episode. Everything he did or said is utterly reasonable and consistent with the actions of a bloke finding a body on his way to work.

Herlock the Naysayer

[harry]

Quite correct Herlock,Cross discovered Nichols.For that there is evidence,the evidence of Cross.There is no evidence he killed her,neither real or circumstancial.No one to attest that he did.No evidence to contradict Cross.

I never mentioned any names in my post on Cross being considered suspect on account of being at the crime scene.I was making a factual comment.It needs to be made,for the killer was certainly there.At some time.

Freshly killed? What does that signify.How long would that state apply?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;422775]

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.

Present tense: ArriveS.

And it was then that you said: Here is IS. Jack the Ripper.

And then come the Wouldhaves:

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.

Three Wouldhaves in two sentences!

Cheers, Pierre

[caz]

Cazī point about how Lechmereīs 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.

Except, Fishy, that I didn't claim Cross's innocence 'is proven'. I realise the nuances of the English language tend to pass you by, but you were not around when I wrote the post in question. It would have been obvious to others that when I wrote 'the man was innocent', I was expressing my personal opinion, based on my instincts and good evidence that innocent witnesses coming across a dead body for the first and only time in their lives will often react just as Cross did and say they thought it was something else at first until they got closer. This would have been no ordinary 'lie' that even the most cunning psychopath could pluck out of the air. Cross would have needed to know about this rare aspect of human perception beforehand and work it into his testimony to make it super credible. How many examples would he have heard about before, where people had thought they were seeing things other than dead bodies, because that would be the last thing they hoped or expected ever to stumble across? Or was it from previous personal experience of coming across dead bodies quite innocently?

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.

You're ignoring the fact that this would not merely have been 'useful'; it mirrors normal human perception, but in extremely abnormal circumstances, of which Cross was incredibly unlikely to have had any previous experience. Nichols would also have needed to look like she could easily be mistaken for a tarpaulin for that description to be believable. Was his memory of what she had looked like in the darkness from a suitable distance up to the job?

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.

No, Fishy, it's nothing short of a tarpaulin.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Except, Fishy, that I didn't claim Cross's innocence 'is proven'. I realise the nuances of the English language tend to pass you by, but you were not around when I wrote the post in question. It would have been obvious to others that when I wrote 'the man was innocent', I was expressing my personal opinion, based on my instincts and good evidence that innocent witnesses coming across a dead body for the first and only time in their lives will often react just as Cross did and say they thought it was something else at first until they got closer. This would have been no ordinary 'lie' that even the most cunning psychopath could pluck out of the air. Cross would have needed to know about this rare aspect of human perception beforehand and work it into his testimony to make it super credible. How many examples would he have heard about before, where people had thought they were seeing things other than dead bodies, because that would be the last thing they hoped or expected ever to stumble across? Or was it from previous personal experience of coming across dead bodies quite innocently?

"Rare aspect of human perception"?? You write the most amusing things, Caz. It involves no rare aspect of huamn perception at all, and if you think Lechmere needed a diploma in perception psychology to make that one up, you are VERY gravely mistaken. Which would not surprise me in the least.
Wherever did you get that whopper from? Please enlighten me on that point, and I will take you out of your misconception quicker than you can say whooops.

You're ignoring the fact that this would not merely have been 'useful'; it mirrors normal human perception, but in extremely abnormal circumstances, of which Cross was incredibly unlikely to have had any previous experience. Nichols would also have needed to look like she could easily be mistaken for a tarpaulin for that description to be believable. Was his memory of what she had looked like in the darkness from a suitable distance up to the job?

This is how easy it is, Caz:

"They know that I was found standing still in the middle of the street, and they will want a reason for why I did not walk up to the woman to help her. Now, how can I solve that problem, what reason can I offer for why I stopped instead of proceeding to help her?"

That is exactly how much of a question depending on higher academic education it is. You seem to be totally deluding yourself, for some peculiar reason.

And "Nichols must have looked like a tarpaulin for him to be able to offer that explanation"...? I mean...wow, sort of.

Compared to this, some of the other reservations made on this thread seem like sheer geniality.

[Fisherman]

CL didn't act oddly at any time during the whole episode. Everything he did or said is utterly reasonable and consistent with the actions of a bloke finding a body on his way to work.

Herlock the Naysayer

Once more, what would you have him do to suspect him? Roll his eyes and dance around, shouting "I killed the mare!"?
The whole idea of bluffing things out is to try and give ANOTHER picture than the real one, Herlock. That is what the concept is like, that is why we bluff - we present ONE thing, while ANOTHER thing is the correct scenario.

However! Saying that there is another PC in place is not consistent with the normal actions of a bloke finding a body on his way to work. Not using his real name is not consistent with a bloke finding a body on his way to work. Und so weiter.

But all of this is futile to point out to you, since you have done what so many accuse me of - closed your mind, and decided what to believe. Thankfully, a barrister and a murder squad leader did not do that, but instead reviewed the evidence and came up with the suggestion that Lechmere is a good bid for the killers role, on account of what you fail to see - a suspicious behaviour.

[Fisherman]

Except Dr Phillips' estimates are virtually worthless. Thus, he estimated time of death by temperature. However, post mortem fall of body temperature is due to four factors:

Ambient conditions (temperature, wind, rain, cooling medium)

Weight of the body, mass: surface area ratio.

Posture of the body (extended or thighs flexed at the abdomen.)

Clothing/coverings.

Did he take all of these factors into account? Even if he did it wouldn't mean very much because he wouldn't then have applied the modern Nomogram method-the current gold standard- which involves a series of complex calculations, involving the use of computer technology and Newtonian physics.

And guess what? Even if he'd been able to his estimate wouldn't have been that accurate: this is the most reliable and well researched method available to modern science, but even in the most favourable case the resulting time since death range is still plus or minus 2.8 hours about the mean value. See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...estion&f=false

Read Wolf Vanderlindens essay. Among other things, it points out how Phillips checked for rigor, and that had only just begun to set in. Normally, it takes wround two hours for this to commence.

But hey - who wants anything normal around here?

Once again, read Vanderlindens essay.

[Pierre]

Double posted.

[caz]

Quite correct Herlock,Cross discovered Nichols.For that there is evidence,the evidence of Cross.

Hi Harry,

It sometimes gets forgotten, in all the noise, that if Cross had not generously identified himself as the man who discovered Nichols, it is highly doubtful he would ever have been identified at all and we would not now know a blessed thing about him, beyond what Paul and PC Mizen were able to recall, from seeing him in the darkness and hearing his voice.

We wouldn't know the name Lechmere or Cross; we wouldn't know where he lived or worked. At most he would be the anonymous man who had noticed a woman lying motionless in the street; had sought the assistance of the next person to come that way; and had gone with him to alert a policeman. Not showing up at the inquest may have resulted in questions being asked of Paul and PC Mizen along the lines of: "How did the finder of the woman strike you from when he first spoke to when you parted company?", and since there is not the slightest hint anywhere that either man came away that morning with an impression of Cross as anyone other than a decent man who was trying to do the right thing despite having to get to work on time, that impression would have been reflected in their responses.

"Oh, now you mention it, he did look a bit shifty"?

"Oh God, his eyes, I'll never forget that evil stare"?

Not a chance.

Mr Nobody would have been forgotten in the blink of an eye - and rightly so if Paul and Mizen were being honest about their impressions.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry,

It sometimes gets forgotten, in all the noise, that if Cross had not generously identified himself as the man who discovered Nichols, it is highly doubtful he would ever have been identified at all and we would not now know a blessed thing about him, beyond what Paul and PC Mizen were able to recall, from seeing him in the darkness and hearing his voice.

We wouldn't know the name Lechmere or Cross; we wouldn't know where he lived or worked. At most he would be the anonymous man who had noticed a woman lying motionless in the street; had sought the assistance of the next person to come that way; and had gone with him to alert a policeman. Not showing up at the inquest may have resulted in questions being asked of Paul and PC Mizen along the lines of: "How did the finder of the woman strike you from when he first spoke to when you parted company?", and since there is not the slightest hint anywhere that either man came away that morning with an impression of Cross as anyone other than a decent man who was trying to do the right thing despite having to get to work on time, that impression would have been reflected in their responses.

"Oh, now you mention it, he did look a bit shifty"?

"Oh God, his eyes, I'll never forget that evil stare"?

Not a chance.

Mr Nobody would have been forgotten in the blink of an eye - and rightly so if Paul and Mizen were being honest about their impressions.

Love,

Caz
X

nope. not at all. the mysterious man would be suspect number one. no doubt about it.