The Nature of Evidence

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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]

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?

[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]

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?

[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

[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]

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]

Time is a function of entropy
Time is an illusion
Time is an evil hag who steals our youth and murders us all
Time flies
Time is only a real concept when combined as space-time

Time to go take a dump

Time goes well with parsley, sage and rosemary.
Time goes more quickly when we're happy.
Time goes much more slowly when I'm wading through Fish's posts.
Time reveals all.

I thank you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

The 'gang' members who attacked Emma Smith.

The foreign looking man seen talking to Annie Chapman.

Broadshoulders and Pipe Man.

The man seen canoodling with Kate Eddowes. [We don't know if this was Anderson's suspect.]

The man Hutchinson saw with Kelly [if he existed].

I expect there were other persons of interest who were never traced from the witness descriptions given.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

It's a good question Steve. We can all, and I certainly have on many occasions, fall into the trap of tacitly accepting that something is true or proven simply because it's been repeated with confidence often enough. There maybe a source but, like you, I'm unaware of it.

Regards
Herlock

Hi Herlock.

And that brings us back to the "Nature of Evidence" it's what does it actually say?
A good example is the earlier (mainly 31st August) press reports which claim that Nichols neck was bleeding profusely. Some see this as little short of an interview with Neil. Indeed such a term was used this year. However it is clear it is not presented as such or even as a quote. It's down to personal intpretation.


That's why I am interested in the actual source.
The important point for my reading of the Mizen scam is that Neil is not aware of Mizen's account on Saturday at the inquest; so to some extent knowing on Sunday or not unimportant to a degree.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pierre

That may all be true, however I wish to know which source says that on the sunday (evening) Neil is still claiming he is the finder.
I just wish to see the source; as I appear not to be able to find it.

Yes there are papers published on Monday which give Neil's testimony from Saturday; that is obviously not the same.


Steve

It's a good question Steve. We can all, and I certainly have on many occasions, fall into the trap of tacitly accepting that something is true or proven simply because it's been repeated with confidence often enough. There maybe a source but, like you, I'm unaware of it.

Regards
Herlock