The Nature of Evidence

[caz]

I was responding to Herlock Sholmes who wrote that we KNOW that Lechmere had no need to bluff.

Innocent or guilty, we all rely on what we KNOW Cross said or did from his own testimony and that of Paul and PC Mizen.

We KNOW he never said or did anything to make Paul or PC Mizen remotely suspicious. Secreting the knife and moving away from the body would not have required any bluffing. [Heavy bloodstaining would have been another matter.] While with Paul he was, to all intents and purposes, just a witness, even if it had been to his own murder before Paul arrived. As long as he didn't boob by saying to Paul: "Come and look at this woman I've just slaughtered", or to PC Mizen: "You are wanted in Buck's Row where my victim is lying", he didn't need to bluff, did he? He was on his way to work; he did alert PC Mizen en route; Mizen did respond, if not instantly. There is no evidence that he ever viewed Cross with suspicion, either at the time or at the inquest, despite their little disagreement over what he was told.

So one could argue that Cross had no need to say or do anything differently from what Paul and PC Mizen between them reported seeing or hearing; no need to say or do anything differently, whether killer or witness.

You need pure speculation and invention to create a scenario whereby Cross was the killer; thought he needed to bluff his way past Paul and PC Mizen; and did so, in a peculiarly specific way, which has no visible means of support in the combined testimony of the only witnesses you have.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

But Abby, if by the slightest of chances, this 'man' [Cross] could have been traced and questioned, what evidence would there have been against him by then? Paul didn't even know Nichols had been murdered when they examined her together and left together to alert a policeman. It's the same with Blotchy. If he had been traced, what then? They didn't have anything like a reliable time of death for Kelly. You can't hang witnesses or persons of interest for not coming forward and those who stay away are not necessarily guilty. If Cross and Blotchy were not one and the same, one or both were innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[caz]

He actually came from the south side of the street after having killed Nichols, and he never entertained any idea about a tarpaulin at all. It was just part of the ruse, and it is typical that he did not mention it to Paul ("I first thought it was a tarpaulin, mate"), because he only made it up later.

Hi Fish,

As you accused me of saying I'd somehow 'proved' Cross innocent on account of his 'tarpaulin' description, how do you justify the above assertion, Fish? It's as risible as anything I have suggested.

I repeat: what are the chances of a psychopathic killer in 1888 being aware that an innocent witness might not immediately have recognised his victim as a human being? Where would such an awareness have come from? I have yet to see you address this question in a sensible manner. You merely poke fun, as if you can wish it away.

And you called Herlock 'gullible' for falling for Cross's 'ruse'.

Pathetic.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That´s two whoppers on Caz´s account now.

Hi Fish,

I'd appreciate it if you would not accuse me of 'whoppers', which English speakers generally take to mean lies. I was expressing my opinions, based on the evidence in this case and on documented first impressions on seeing a dead or dying person. I don't accuse you of telling whoppers when you are merely expressing your views, however much I might disagree with them.

If you meant something else, then perhaps you'd be gracious enough to use a more appropriate word for it in future. I do realise you have trouble with the language, but you are also quick enough on the uptake not to repeat the offence once it has been pointed out to you.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That´s as clueless as it gets. People who are found alone with murder victims at the approximate times of their deaths, and who subsequently dissapear from the radar, will inevitably be the focus of any investigation worth it´s salt, especially if no other suspect surfaces.

Lechmere apparently defused this by coming forward by himself. It hsould be noted, though, that he seemingly did not come forward until after the Paul interview.

Thought you´d value a reality check, Caz.

But that is not what I was saying, Fish. I was pointing out that if the 'man', who examined Nichols with Paul and went with him to alert a copper, then 'disappeared from the radar', he'd have barely been on it in the first place, not having given rise to any suspicion on the part of either Paul or PC Mizen. They'd have had a job to put him back on the radar and make him a focus of their investigation, but if they had eventually succeeded in tracking him down, and he was positively identified by both witnesses as 'the man', what then?

As you will have found to your deepest regret, they couldn't hang Cross for finding Nichols first, whether he lied to PC Mizen and again at the inquest and PC Mizen knew it, or he didn't turn up at all because, by all accounts, he hadn't actually witnessed a murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

But Abby, if by the slightest of chances, this 'man' [Cross] could have been traced and questioned, what evidence would there have been against him by then? Paul didn't even know Nichols had been murdered when they examined her together and left together to alert a policeman. It's the same with Blotchy. If he had been traced, what then? They didn't have anything like a reliable time of death for Kelly. You can't hang witnesses or persons of interest for not coming forward and those who stay away are not necessarily guilty. If Cross and Blotchy were not one and the same, one or both were innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

"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.

Hi Fish,

Yeah, it is rare to come across a dead body in the street. So it follows that the normal human reaction to this experience will be equally rare, since few of us will ever experience this, never mind more than once. Your killer is meant to have been a psychopath, with no empathy for a living prostitute who had to ply her trade in the early hours when he was on his way to work, let alone a dead or dying one. He could not have had the remotest idea that an innocent witness, on initially spotting the "freshly killed" Nichols, would have been programmed psychologically to see something else entirely - in this case a tarpaulin - if the last thing on earth he'd have wanted to see, and therefore expected to see, was a fellow human being in this condition.

Sorry, Fish, but your reaction - to try and make fun of me for having to explain this very real phenomenon to you - is also very telling.

If there was cctv of Jack the Ripper running off just before Cross arrived, you'd say Cross must have had the technology to fake it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Of course Fish we really have nothing to say when he approached the authorities do we?

Yes, we actually do have a few bits and bobs that allow us to establish a few things. we know that on the evening of the 2:nd, Neil was still claiming to be the finder of the body, and that was on Sunday, the day before Mondays inquest day. So at that stage, Lechmere had quite apparently not made his entrance.
If you are saying that we do not have the exact time he arrived at the cop shop, you are correct, of course.

We know when he appeared at the inquest, however as far as I am aware there are no records of when he first made contact. Yes it may have been after the Lloyds article but then again it could have been before,
Of course you know that by the use of "seemingly".

As I say, Lechmere blew Neils story out of the water, and that story was very much afloat on the evening of the 2:nd.
You have a propensity at times to underrate how things can be read from surrounding circumstaces, but I hope you won´t allow that to lead you wrong on this matter.
The only logical removes of time that Lechmere can have arrived is on Sunday evening or on Monday, possibly in direct connection with the inquest.

Hi Fish, hope you have had a good few days.

Something occurred to me about the above.

If as you say on the Evening of the 2nd, Neil was still claiming to be the finder of the body; does not that mean that either he was not aware of the Lloyds story or that he and maybe his superiors were discounting it?

Are we to believe that Mizen made no comment to Neil ?
Surely by the Evening of the second Mizen had given at least a verbal and probably written report of events, was Neil unaware of these or just ignoring ?

Therefore if Lechmere would blow Neil's story out of the water, Paul's already had in the public eye and any report from Mizen would have the same effect internally in the Police.

It follows that just because Neil was still saying he was the finder on the Sunday evening it does not exclude Lechmere from having already made contact with the authorities.

Steve

[drstrange169]

>>Why did he only see him at (almost) the exact moment that Lechmere stopped in the middle of the street?<<

Or to put it another way, why did he just happen to see him at the very moment hat confirms Zmere's version of events.

Charles Lechmere is a person of interest, but the current theories against him are all based on spin.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It didn't take much guessing, Herlock.

All the best,
Frank

I suppose not

The threads gone really quiet at the moment. Fisherman's away at the moment and I assume that Steve (Elamarna) is totally tied up with his current research (unless he's been locked in the cellar of the Ten Bells ). No doubt it will come to life again pretty soon.

Regards
Herlock

[FrankO]

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

It didn't take much guessing, Herlock.

All the best,
Frank

[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

[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]

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

[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?