The Nature of Evidence

[harry]

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.

[John G]

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.

No, rigor mortis usually develops 2-4 hours after death, but this can vary widely. For instance, in one case, rigor mortis fully developed just minutes after death! See: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...mortis&f=false

[Abby Normal]

Hi, Abby,
It doesn't seem odd to me.

Lechmere is hurrying to work. In the near dark, he spots what he thinks is a tarpaulin -- just lying there, available for the taking. He starts toward it, gets halfway across the street and realizes it's a woman. That stops him in his tracks.

As he is stopped, looking at a woman who is not moving, he hears someone else approaching. The woman doesn't move. He's unsure. The man reaches him and he consults with another passerby.

Have you never stopped to reassess something?

curious

yes of course. but it just simply strikes me odd in that instant--that second or two--paul comes across him. But you and others don't find it odd, so no big whup.

[curious]

no and point taken about him being unsure what condition she was in. My main point is he just happens to come upon him while hes standing there. in that instant.

to your point-if lech was uncertain what condition she was in-why even hesitate. probably just another passed out drunk-hurry along to work. now Paul comes on the scene. hmm woman on ground.. here comes unknown man in bad part of town. dosnt leave then? I would have skidaddled at that point probably.

again, hes seen just standing there. hes not first noticed asking for help, hes not seen walking down the road stopping to look at it, hes not seen walking away, hes not seen trying to give assisstance.. etc.

just at that very moment, in an almost deserted street at that time of night?
I could see it more likely in more busy instances-like when there was more people about, ie, the stride murder site.

just seems odd to me.

Hi, Abby,
It doesn't seem odd to me.

Lechmere is hurrying to work. In the near dark, he spots what he thinks is a tarpaulin -- just lying there, available for the taking. He starts toward it, gets halfway across the street and realizes it's a woman. That stops him in his tracks.

As he is stopped, looking at a woman who is not moving, he hears someone else approaching. The woman doesn't move. He's unsure. The man reaches him and he consults with another passerby.

Have you never stopped to reassess something?

curious

[Herlock Sholmes]

That assumes that Neil would have been made aware of any approach by Lechmere. Which he may not have been. To a great extent it would depend on who, if anyone he approached. And if that information was passed on. It need not have been. It could have been come to the inquest on Monday is what he was told.
It also assumes that he read the Lloyds story, or was aware of it, which is of course not certain and we did not have the media we have today to push the story.






See above.

Yes it is possible and I have not argued otherwise, only that it is not a certainly.

It could be that he had not been aware the inquest had started, and went once he became aware, maybe by reading Lloyds or some other paper.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Perhaps we sometimes forget, even for a short time, that in 1888 communication was nowhere near as all consuming as it is today. Not everyone would buy a newspaper. CL may never have even read a book in his life? News could travel slowly. Systems weren't as robust or fool-proofed.

I made a similar point about CL using the name Cross at the Inquest. You or I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing today, even if we went by a name other than our birth name. But we have to remember that Victorians didn't live under The overarching umbrella of beaurocracy that we are so used to. Your average man would have very little to do with 'officialdom.' We, however, fill in forms ad nauseum, use banking systems, have passwords, understand 'identity theft'.

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

Poor old Charlie can't really win, can he?

When he spots the body and naturally mistakes it for something harmless in the shadows, that's obviously him inventing a clever cover story for his gruesome crime.

When he alerts the first witness who comes along, instead of walking away, that's obviously because he's a thrillseeking psychopath and not an innocent bystander.

It's a weird, inverted kind of logic.

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

[Pierre]

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.

Wrong. The journalists did it already on the 1st:

Sunderland Daily Echo and Shipping Gazette - Saturday 01 September 1888:

[Harry D]

Poor old Charlie can't really win, can he?

When he spots the body and naturally mistakes it for something harmless in the shadows, that's obviously him inventing a clever cover story for his gruesome crime.

When he alerts the first witness who comes along, instead of walking away, that's obviously because he's a thrillseeking psychopath and not an innocent bystander.

It's a weird, inverted kind of logic.

[Harry D]

While Steve tries to understand the problem I just described to him, I will take the opportunity too say that I am leaving for a weeks time now, to do better things altogether than to quibble over uninteresting things.

Bye for now.

Love how Fish always twirls his cape and makes a dramatic exit.

[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.

That assumes that Neil would have been made aware of any approach by Lechmere. Which he may not have been. To a great extent it would depend on who, if anyone he approached. And if that information was passed on. It need not have been. It could have been come to the inquest on Monday is what he was told.
It also assumes that he read the Lloyds story, or was aware of it, which is of course not certain and we did not have the media we have today to push the story.

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.

See above.

Yes it is possible and I have not argued otherwise, only that it is not a certainly.

It could be that he had not been aware the inquest had started, and went once he became aware, maybe by reading Lloyds or some other paper.


Steve

[Elamarna]

I was responding to Herlock Sholmes who wrote that we KNOW that Lechmere had no need to bluff. Interestingly, every time I do something like this to comment on how a poster from the other side has stated as a fact what cannot be stated as a fact, I am the one who is attacked.

Why is that, Steve? Any ideas? Guesses? No?

I would say that the more experienced posters should show the way things should be done to those with lesser experience.

It is even more important when one is presenting a suspect theory to my way of thinking.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was responding to Herlock Sholmes who wrote that we KNOW that Lechmere had no need to bluff. Interestingly, every time I do something like this to comment on how a poster from the other side has stated as a fact what cannot be stated as a fact, I am the one who is attacked.

Why is that, Steve? Any ideas? Guesses? No?

I don't need to guess

You've just stated that CL lied about the tarpaulin. With no evidence! Please TRY and listen to yourself Fish.

Maybe you think in Swedish but write in English and things get lost in translation?

Herlock the Naysayer

[John G]

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.

But rigor mortis is an even less reliable method. Moreover, in the case of violent death, such as cut throat, it's onset can be fast and of short duration.

[Fisherman]

While Steve tries to understand the problem I just described to him, I will take the opportunity too say that I am leaving for a weeks time now, to do better things altogether than to quibble over uninteresting things.

Bye for now.

[Fisherman]

That's is what upsets me.

You state he came from the south side after having killed Nichols.

When it should read "if he killed Nichols, he came from the Southside." Or something like that.

Nitpicking you may say but it's about the impression we create to others by what we write.


Steve

I was responding to Herlock Sholmes who wrote that we KNOW that Lechmere had no need to bluff. Interestingly, every time I do something like this to comment on how a poster from the other side has stated as a fact what cannot be stated as a fact, I am the one who is attacked.

Why is that, Steve? Any ideas? Guesses? No?