The Nature of Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry Pierre

Badly worded on my part. Very badly.

My research ties in with the fact that Mizen had not apparently let Neil know of his encounter with the Carmen.
I have reason to belive he said nothing about another policeman until after the Lloyds story was published.

Sorry not to be more explicit at present.

Steve

Look forward to reading it Steve.

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does Paul get the same rating? He was there. Could he not have circled back? Maybe that's why he tried to avoid Cross? I mean, I can invent the same sorts of scenarios for Paul that have been invented for Cross.

Absolutely. Fairly recently, as an experiment, I put forward a made-up scenario implicating Diemschutz in the murder of Stride.

Combining imagination with wish-fulfilment can make almost anyone into Jack.

Regards
Herlock

[caz]

If Paul had described it in the newspaper as deplorable that PC Mizen had not detained and searched this other 'man', whom he [Paul] had 'found with the freshly killed woman', things might have been different. But of course, Paul claimed that the body of Nichols was cold and should have been found sooner if the police had been doing their job properly, so there was another get-out for Cross, and if Paul later changed his tune and said she might still have been alive at that point, it still wouldn't have dropped him in it. At worst it would have made Paul look like a liar or a terrible witness.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Clearly nothing forced Cross to come forward. A fanciful interpretation of events is required for one to think otherwise. Paul's "remarkable statement" is critical of the police generally, and of Jonas Mizen particularly. Cross is barley mentioned, as we know.

Further, Christer's "theory" imagines that information was in 1888 as it is in 2017. That is to say, if Cross hadn't come forward voluntarily and was located some time later, he could have credibly contended that he hadn't read Paul's statement in Lloyd's. Thus, he'd assumed that his duty was done: He HAD reported what he'd found to the police in the person of PC Jonas Mizen. It's his responsibility to clear things up after Mizen does not mentioned their interaction to ANYONE? It's HIS job to set the record straight after Neil testifies that he'd found the body - he and he alone?

Its clear the simple folks of the East End understood something then that Christer and his cabal fail to understand, even today: Charles Cross wasn't the party of responsibility. He'd done his bit, as a citizen. He reported to the police. The police allowed him to go on his way. His name wasn't recorded. He wasn't told to report the station. He was allowed to continue on without condition. The police had ALL of the responsibility. Mizen was responsible for filing an accurate report, for letting Neil, his superiors, ANYONE know that he'd spoken to two men who claimed to have found Nichols. He didn't. And CROSS is "flushed out" because of this?

As a policeman, Neil was responsible for giving an accurate account with respect to the finding of the body. He didn't (though it was, as we've seen, likely through no fault of his own). And that drove CROSS out of "hiding"?

This theory place such high expectations on Charles Cross. He was responsible for making certain it was all gotten right. Not Neil. Not Mizen. Not Thain. And when it wasn't gotten QUITE right? Well.....he's Jack the Ripper.

Hi Patrick,

The irony is that Cross did take on the responsibility of getting it right, by confirming that he, not PC Neil, had found the woman and raised the alarm in company with Robert Paul. What he must have thought of the first reports he read, if indeed he read any of them, goodness alone knows. But it's more likely he'd have devoured as much news - fake or otherwise - as possible if he was the killer, to forearm himself. But then, if he did that, he'd have been laughing, wouldn't he? There was PC Neil claiming to have found the woman first; no spokesman for PC Mizen at all; and Robert Paul condemning the police and Mizen for their lack of prompt action, while congratulating himself and the other 'man' for doing the right thing!

Love,

Caz
X

[Pierre]

Sorry Pierre

Badly worded on my part. Very badly.

My research ties in with the fact that Mizen had not apparently let Neil know of his encounter with the Carmen.

Steve

OK, now it is clear. Thanks Steve.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I´m sorry but I don´t understand this, could you please explain?:

"...Neil still believed on the Evening of the 2nd it proves Lech had not come forward comes from associated research."

Thanks.

Pierre

Sorry Pierre

Badly worded on my part. Very badly.

My research ties in with the fact that Mizen had not apparently let Neil know of his encounter with the Carmen.
I have reason to belive he said nothing about another policeman until after the Lloyds story was published.

Sorry not to be more explicit at present.

Steve

[Pierre]

Patrick, Herlock, Abby, Caz and anyone else.

Just finished second draft of my scam write up

It all holds together from the viewpoint that Mizen showed no urgency at all.
My post this morning countering Fish's idea that because Neil still believed on the Evening of the 2nd it proves Lech had not come forward comes from associated research.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I´m sorry but I don´t understand this, could you please explain?:

"...Neil still believed on the Evening of the 2nd it proves Lech had not come forward comes from associated research."

Thanks.

Pierre

[Robert St Devil]

Hi all,

Can we put to bed this notion that Fish has that CL only attended the Inquest after Paul's interview in Lloyd's? And that Paul's statement forced him to reveal himself.

How great was it's circulation? Who was its target audience? Is it likely that CL would have bought or even seen a copy?

There appears to be not a shred of evidence to prove that CL was somehow forced out into the open. How can anyone know that he fully intended to attend the Inquest all along?

Regards
Herlock

i don't know what brought Lechmere forward.

regarding lloyds. it was a sunday edition that circulated the weekend of the 3rd scandalous murder of 1888. i cant say with any authority, but it doesnt appear as tho many newspapers published sunday editions, so lloyd's may have filled a news void for a curious public that day.

[Elamarna]

Patrick, Herlock, Abby, Caz and anyone else.

Just finished second draft of my scam write up

It all holds together from the viewpoint that Mizen showed no urgency at all.
My post this morning countering Fish's idea that because Neil still believed on the Evening of the 2nd it proves Lech had not come forward comes from associated research.

Steve

[Patrick S]

Hi all,

Can we put to bed this notion that Fish has that CL only attended the Inquest after Paul's interview in Lloyd's? And that Paul's statement forced him to reveal himself.

How great was it's circulation? Who was its target audience? Is it likely that CL would have bought or even seen a copy?

There appears to be not a shred of evidence to prove that CL was somehow forced out into the open. How can anyone know that he fully intended to attend the Inquest all along?

Regards
Herlock

Clearly nothing forced Cross to come forward. A fanciful interpretation of events is required for one to think otherwise. Paul's "remarkable statement" is critical of the police generally, and of Jonas Mizen particularly. Cross is barley mentioned, as we know.

Further, Christer's "theory" imagines that information was in 1888 as it is in 2017. That is to say, if Cross hadn't come forward voluntarily and was located some time later, he could have credibly contended that he hadn't read Paul's statement in Lloyd's. Thus, he'd assumed that his duty was done: He HAD reported what he'd found to the police in the person of PC Jonas Mizen. It's his responsibility to clear things up after Mizen does not mentioned their interaction to ANYONE? It's HIS job to set the record straight after Neil testifies that he'd found the body - he and he alone?

Its clear the simple folks of the East End understood something then that Christer and his cabal fail to understand, even today: Charles Cross wasn't the party of responsibility. He'd done his bit, as a citizen. He reported to the police. The police allowed him to go on his way. His name wasn't recorded. He wasn't told to report the station. He was allowed to continue on without condition. The police had ALL of the responsibility. Mizen was responsible for filing an accurate report, for letting Neil, his superiors, ANYONE know that he'd spoken to two men who claimed to have found Nichols. He didn't. And CROSS is "flushed out" because of this?

As a policeman, Neil was responsible for giving an accurate account with respect to the finding of the body. He didn't (though it was, as we've seen, likely through no fault of his own). And that drove CROSS out of "hiding"?

This theory place such high expectations on Charles Cross. He was responsible for making certain it was all gotten right. Not Neil. Not Mizen. Not Thain. And when it wasn't gotten QUITE right? Well.....he's Jack the Ripper.

[caz]

Hi caz
If lech hadn't come forward, I think they probably could have found him fairly easily. They knew he was a carman going to work and Paul or Mizen could have identified him. And finding him would be the first step in either clearing him or not.

Fair point, Abby, although I'm not sure Mizen knew he was a carman from seeing him briefly in the darkness, nor how easy it would have been for either of them to recall his features [unless there was something that stood out - oo-er missus ], or for the police to trace him from any description they could give, from among so many anonymous workmen in the area. He'd have surely changed his route to work for starters if he wanted to kill again without fear of being recognised. If they did find the right man, both Paul and PC Mizen would have needed to swear to it, or he could have claimed mistaken identity.

And once they find him, who knows what they could have found out-or if they find any other incriminating evidence.

He'd have known that was the risk he was taking by lying low, and would have made sure the police wouldn't find anything incriminating. He'd have had to do that in any case after coming forward, in the event he was routinely checked out at home or work and something - like his name for instance - caused raised eyebrows.

But one thing for sure is that until they did find him he would be number one suspect, or at least person of interest.

If it was decided that Hutch's story didn't add up, Blotchy should have remained a major suspect, having been seen going with Kelly into the murder room. But even this, together with his 'very distinct appearance', did not result in him being found and called to account. For Cross it would have been child's play by comparison to stay off the radar. And he knew he hadn't been seen with a victim who was clearly alive, nor with one who had obviously been murdered.

Re blotchy VS. Hutch. I'm sure they aren't the same man, blotchy had a very distinct appearance, and I'm sure abberline would have been all over it if lech had red hair and a blotchy face. And IMHO, between the two, lech would be the innocent one.

Agreed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

Hi caz
If lech hadn't come forward, I think they probably could have found him fairly easily. They knew he was a carman going to work and Paul or Mizen could have identified him. And finding him would be the first step in either clearing him or not. And once they find him, who knows what they could have found out-or if they find any other incriminating evidence. But one thing for sure is that until they did find him he would be number one suspect, or at least person of interest.

Re blotchy VS. Hutch. I'm sure they aren't the same man, blotchy had a very distinct appearance, and I'm sure abberline would have been all over it if lech had red hair and a blotchy face. And IMHO, between the two, lech would be the innocent one.

Shall we come up with a list of individuals associated with the Whitechapel murders who were sought and never found or identified?

[Patrick S]

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

Does Paul get the same rating? He was there. Could he not have circled back? Maybe that's why he tried to avoid Cross? I mean, I can invent the same sorts of scenarios for Paul that have been invented for Cross.

[caz]

I agree, Herlock. When I observed that a fearless psychopath would hardly have felt 'forced' into the open by what Paul had to say about the night's work [positive and not remotely suspicious about the as yet unnamed finder's contribution; only negative about PC Mizen's], assuming he had even read the article, Fish ripped me a new one.

I think Fish preferred us to see it as damage limitation on Cross's part, now that Paul had revealed that PC Neil was not the finder after all. But if Cross was the killer, he must have expected his role to have come out one way or another, before he'd even arrived at work that morning.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all,

Can we put to bed this notion that Fish has that CL only attended the Inquest after Paul's interview in Lloyd's? And that Paul's statement forced him to reveal himself.

How great was it's circulation? Who was its target audience? Is it likely that CL would have bought or even seen a copy?

There appears to be not a shred of evidence to prove that CL was somehow forced out into the open. How can anyone know that he fully intended to attend the Inquest all along?

Regards
Herlock