The Nature of Evidence

[Pierre]

Cross did contact the authorities, within minutes of finding the body of Nichols.Mizen ,a policeman,represented the authorities.Cross reported to him.
Paul is witness to that fact No evasure there.

Matemathical coherence is built on "truth" within the matemathical system. 1+1 equals 2. True. Coherent matemathics.

Matemathical correspondence is built on "truth" between figures and empirical objects. There are 2 people there. True. Corresponding matemathics.

This methodology is always used within history too.

Hypothesis:

To escape the authorities Cross contacted the authorities.

Coherent within Fisherman´s "theoretical" system.

Not corresponding to empirical objects. Cross did not escape the authorities in the past.

Therefore not true history.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Thanks curious
Of course we could take anything about the case and say maybe the reporter got it slightly wrong, but I see your point.


I think for those who DONT think it odd try acting that transaction out with two people, role play, or at least in your mind.

It's weird. If I was Paul, and in the similar situation I would have maybe even squared up against lech and prepared to fend him off or punch him in the nose.

You don't walk up to someone who's trying to avoid you on a deserted street in the middle of the night without saying a word and tap him on the shoulder before you say anything.

You forget that Paul saw what Cross saw.

Paul also saw something more: Cross and how he behaved.

What Cross told Paul therefore was percieved of as "true".

That is an historically well established fact.

Use it to understand the tapping on the shoulder!

[curious]

Hi Harry,

The dude must be spinning in his grave! Whatever he did, said or even thought is construed of as proof of his diabolically fiendish mind!

Regards
Herlock the Naysayer

Exactly! Which is what I loathe so much about this absolutely mule-headed, relentless persecution of him. So far as anyone knows, he was a man who raised a big family, worked a long-tern job and managed to open his own business, living a long, hardworking, productive life.

However, nothing is allowed to be said in his defense without it being savagely, ruthlessly sledge-hammered down.

curious

[curious]

I would also suggest that quite a few people would be hesitant to get too close to a possible corpse. It's called human nature.

Herlock the Naysayer

Also, if that area were notorious, he could have been walking into a trap to get too close. The woman could have been lying there as a lure with a friend hiding in the shadows to attack and rob him.

curious

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, if that area were notorious, he could have been walking into a trap to get too close. The woman could have been lying there as a lure with a friend hiding in the shadows to attack and rob him.

curious

Hi Curious

That's a good point. These things did happen. Who wouldn't be wary in a dimly lit Whitechapel backstreet!

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly! Which is what I loathe so much about this absolutely mule-headed, relentless persecution of him. So far as anyone knows, he was a man who raised a big family, worked a long-tern job and managed to open his own business, living a long, hardworking, productive life.

However, nothing is allowed to be said in his defense without it being savagely, ruthlessly sledge-hammered down.

curious

For me, and obviously it's my own personal opinion, I give CL a 1 out of 10 suspect rating. He only gets that because he was actually, provably there.

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

For me, and obviously it's my own personal opinion, I give CL a 1 out of 10 suspect rating. He only gets that because he was actually, provably there.

Regards
Herlock

Hi Herlock,

are you consequent with this principle, i.e., does this mean that every single one who was actually, provable there gets a 1 out of 10 suspect rating?

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

are you consequent with this principle, i.e., does this mean that every single one who was actually, provable there gets a 1 out of 10 suspect rating?

Perhaps Herlock meant every single person who was provably there and also identified, at some point, as a suspect?

Clearly we can't give the likes of Elizabeth Long and Joseph Lawende a "1" rating simply because they happened by a murder scene at around the right time, because neither - as far as I'm aware - has been put forward as a Ripper candidate.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

are you consequent with this principle, i.e., does this mean that every single one who was actually, provable there gets a 1 out of 10 suspect rating?

Pierre

Hi Pierre

They get a 1 out of ten only if they provably exist and cannot be categorically disproven as a suspect

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre

They get a 1 out of ten only if they provably exist and cannot be categorically disproven as a suspect

Regards
Herlock

Hi,

And is that your definition for Xmere too?

Or is there some difference?

Cheers, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS
Yes when fish and lech (the poster) first proposed lech I was one of there biggest critics and I grilled them pretty hard on all this stuff, including your specific point. I asked what's the chance he just happens to find a prostitute on bucks row on his way to work.

I believe Fish's response was something along the lines of lech probably left home earlier than he said that's on record and maybe came across her on one of the near main roads, like WC street.

I was dubious, but since then, I have come to the idea that Polly may have been sleeping rough/dozing/passed out drunk on the sidewalk or up against the gates when the ripper came upon her, lech or not, so this concern is now kind of a moot point For me.

That being said, I do have a big problem with the ripper, post mortem mutilator, carrying a bloody knife, probably with internal organs, and blood on his hands or clothes hunting and killing on his way to work. It's my main beef against lech as ripper actually.

Hi Abby

Your suggestion that the ripper came upon Nichols as she was dozing, or drunk or even preparing to bed down for the night is plausible. He might also have followed her for a street or two as she tottered drunkenly along. Not CL though (ok, you knew that I'd say that)

I don't go for Fish's suggestion of CL going out earlier than he said and picking her up on another street though. My thinking is: CL was overwhelmingly likely to have started work at the same time every day. He would therefore leave home as near to the same time every day (allowing for no alarms clocks etc). He would also take the same route every day. If you placed two points, a and b, 100 yards apart say somewhere along Bucks Row. At a certain time of the morning for, say 9 days out of 10, CL would be found somewhere between point a and b. (clear as mud?) I find it pretty unbelievable that CL the Ripper would find a victim 'somewhere' then take her and kill her in the same area that he would have been in every day of the week at that time. I'm unsure if I've made that very clear?

Your point about not killing on the way to work....well you know that you'll get no arguement from me on that score

Regards
Herlock

[harry]

Cross was second on the scene,after Nichols was dead,her killer obviously being the first.That was a matter of chance on the part of Cross,not evidence of guilt.
The fact that there were a number of persons on the scene,within a very short time of her being found dead,increase s the number that should be classed as suspect simply by being there,as each of those persons also must have had the opportunity to be there prior to the arrival of Cross.
So Cross is not the only person of interest,nor the best candidate for suspicion.
His movements are known,what of the others?

[FrankO]

I find it pretty unbelievable that CL the Ripper would find a victim 'somewhere' then take her and kill her in the same area that he would have been in every day of the week at that time.

That’s how I see it as well, Herlock. It, at least, wouldn’t have been a smart choice to take back Nichols to the one and only street he just HAD to take when going to work.

All the best,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

That’s how I see it as well, Herlock. It, at least, wouldn’t have been a smart choice to take back Nichols to the one and only street he just HAD to take when going to work.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank

It just doesn't make sense that he could have killed her in another street but chose a place that could possibly incriminate him.

As you've probably guessed nothing about CL says 'killer' for me.

Regards
Herlock

[FrankO]

My main point is he just happens to come upon him while hes standing there. in that instant.

That, more or less, goes both ways when you think about it, Abby. Why would Paul not arrive at a point that he, however vaguely perhaps, saw Lechmere the killer move away from the body? Why would he not hear anything of Lechmere moving a bit around the body and then to the middle of the street? Why did he only see him at (almost) the exact moment that Lechmere stopped in the middle of the street?

You might, of course, suggest that Lechmere had been there for some seconds already, but the longer he was there already, the more additional time he would have had to get away (up to about 1.8 meters/second if he walked). The shorter the time, the more you get to the point you’re raising: that it’s odd that Paul just happens to come upon him while he’s standing there, in that instant.

All the best,
Frank