The Nature of Evidence

[Patrick S]

No, Patrick - no short, arrogant oneliners, please - try to discuss the errand at hand instead. Please?

For example, you could admit that your post about an intimidating locality was a bit odd, and that Lechmere´s own testimony seems to indicate that Paul was afraid primarily of him, not the locality.

On the contrary. I find your take on it entirely laughable.

I'll ask again, though. What state do you think Cross was in that frightened Paul so? You claim he was intent on bluffing his way out. Did he begin the bluff by rushing Paul in an intimidating way? You told Caz how appalled you were that she'd underestimate this brilliant madman. Was he incapable of composing himself adequately so as not to frighten Paul before he enlisted his help in finding a cop?

Paul himself tells us he was on his guard because of WHERE HE WAS. But, you say that's balderdash! Absurd! And, again, you reach for some unreasonable, untenable, illogical "conclusion" that's not supported by anything but your desire to point the finger of guilt at one man.

[Fisherman]

whats wrong with freshly killed? is it because she may have still alive when they found her?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it - it is instead a case fact. But it is a case fact that people dislike, and that they do not want to hear.

I have no idea what they WANT to hear. Long dead? And bleeding?

[Fisherman]

There was some competence for the role of primary comic relief post on JTR, where a rather prominent poster came up with the idea of Lechmere not being a viable candidate for the murderers role - on account of how he would never have risked to loose his job...

Really! And the proprietor of JTR found it an excellent post.

I keep saying that I am convinced that there are a good many serialists out there who managed to stop killing and who were never found.

Maybe they´re the ones who opted for a carreer at work instead.

[Abby Normal]

I've read more than one post - by you - promoting your man because he's the ONLY suspect found with a "freshly killed" (I can't get enough of the term, really) Ripper victim. If you want to walk that back now, fair enough. A good bit of your "theory" has changed over the years. But, please allow us time to adjust.

whats wrong with freshly killed? is it because she may have still alive when they found her?

[Patrick S]

I have never said that it is nefarious, however. Instead, I have over and over again said that there is nothing incriminating in finding a murder victim. And I have posted a long post where I asked to have that respected.

And what happens?

I've read more than one post - by you - promoting your man because he's the ONLY suspect found with a "freshly killed" (I can't get enough of the term, really) Ripper victim. If you want to walk that back now, fair enough. A good bit of your "theory" has changed over the years. But, please allow us time to adjust.

[Fisherman]

I'm sensing a theme.

No, Patrick - no short, arrogant oneliners, please - try to discuss the errand at hand instead. Please?

For example, you could admit that your post about an intimidating locality was a bit odd, and that Lechmere´s own testimony seems to indicate that Paul was afraid primarily of him, not the locality.

[Fisherman]

It's quite incomparable with my take on things.

So you DON`T think Griffiths was correct in his verdict that Lechmere did not interact suspiciously with Paul?
You think Lechmere´s actions in the street were suspicious, therefore?

Okay.

[Fisherman]

Let this stand as a disclaimer to several of your acolytes that continue posting about the nefariousness of having been found near a "freshly killed" (God...I love that term) corpse.

I have never said that it is nefarious, however. Instead, I have over and over again said that there is nothing incriminating in finding a murder victim. And I have posted a long post where I asked to have that respected.

And what happens?

[Patrick S]

You can do it for me, I´m sure. Somebody - and I had a feeling it was you, but apparently it was not - said that Griffiths had no problems with the scenario. Which is correct.
Sorry if I got it wrong and - not least - if the suggestion is incomparable with your take on things.

It's quite incomparable with my take on things.

[Patrick S]

Caz´ point about how Lechmere´s innocence is proven by how he would never have made up the story about the tarpaulin is the comic relief of the thread so far. The mere suggestion is VERY odd, to say the least.

To begin with, the scenario with Lechmere as the killer involves him concocting a complicated and intelligent lie about an extra PC, and he does that on his feet, no problems at all.

So I don´t think we should underestimate him on this point.

Moreover, when he went to thenpolice he had had a lot of time to ponder what to tell them, if he was the killer. And he would be very aware of what Paul had said in his paper interview - that he had seen Lechmere standing where the body was. Standing, not helping.

Reasonably, he would realize that this was a question tht may well surface: Why were you just standing there, why did you not help the woman?

Let´s reason theoretically that he saw that it was a woman on the pavement from the outset, that there never was any idea on his behalf that it was a tarpaulin.
Would he in such a case walk out into the street, and then stop short in the middle of it, doing nothing? Not very likely, is it?

So he would have needed an explanation for why he stopped and stood still, and I beleive that this is where the tarpaulin story becomes useful.

To claim that he would not have been able to make it up, to try and lead on that it guarantees innocence, and not least to use this very weak idea as a reason to once again say that it is a shame that we are allowed to portray Lechmere as the killer, is nothing short of appalling.

I'm sensing a theme.

[Fisherman]

Patrick did what? Check again.

You can do it for me, I´m sure. Somebody - and I had a feeling it was you, but apparently it was not - said that Griffiths had no problems with the scenario. Which is correct.
Sorry if I got it wrong and - not least - if the suggestion is incomparable with your take on things.

[Fisherman]

Caz´ point about how Lechmere´s innocence is proven by how he would never have made up the story about the tarpaulin is the comic relief of the thread so far. The mere suggestion is VERY odd, to say the least.

To begin with, the scenario with Lechmere as the killer involves him concocting a complicated and intelligent lie about an extra PC, and he does that on his feet, no problems at all.

So I don´t think we should underestimate him on this point.

Moreover, when he went to thenpolice he had had a lot of time to ponder what to tell them, if he was the killer. And he would be very aware of what Paul had said in his paper interview - that he had seen Lechmere standing where the body was. Standing, not helping.

Reasonably, he would realize that this was a question tht may well surface: Why were you just standing there, why did you not help the woman?

Let´s reason theoretically that he saw that it was a woman on the pavement from the outset, that there never was any idea on his behalf that it was a tarpaulin.
Would he in such a case walk out into the street, and then stop short in the middle of it, doing nothing? Not very likely, is it?

So he would have needed an explanation for why he stopped and stood still, and I beleive that this is where the tarpaulin story becomes useful.

To claim that he would not have been able to make it up, to try and lead on that it guarantees innocence, and not least to use this very weak idea as a reason to once again say that it is a shame that we are allowed to portray Lechmere as the killer, is nothing short of appalling.

[Patrick S]

Abby´s point, though shunned by some posters, is of course a very good one.

If Lechmere had been a whole minute in front of Paul, he should reasonably have been tending to the woman as Paul arrived.

If Lechmere had been only ten seconds in front of Paul, the latter should have seen the former step out into then street.

Instead, Paul arrives in the exact moment when Lechmere has stepped out into the street, thinking he was seeing a tarpaulin, and halting when he realized that it was instead a woman.

I think it stands to reason to say that Lechmere would not have made a longish halt out in the middle of the street, but instead one of a few seconds only, to reinterpret what he saw. After that, if Paul did not arrive, he would either have decided to leave the woman and walk on, or he would have walked over to her to see if he could help out in any way. You don´t remain standing for a minute or two in the middle of the street, and indeed, Lechmere himself says that it was when he had stepped out into the street and stopped that he heard Paul approaching from thirty, forty yards away.

So it is an almighty coincidence that Paul arrived precisely in those few seconds, Abby is correct on that score. And it remains a mystery that Paul did not notice Lechmere walking in front of him before that.

I also concur that Lechmere acted oddly at the site, but as Patrick pointed out, Andy Griffiths did not see anything odd about it, and I can buy that. After that, one can of course talk about how it is interesting that Patrick accepts what Griffiths says in this case, while disbeliving him on other matters...

Patrick did what? Check again.

[Fisherman]

Abby´s point, though shunned by some posters, is of course a very good one.

If Lechmere had been a whole minute in front of Paul, he should reasonably have been tending to the woman as Paul arrived.

If Lechmere had been only ten seconds in front of Paul, the latter should have seen the former step out into then street.

Instead, Paul arrives in the exact moment when Lechmere has stepped out into the street, thinking he was seeing a tarpaulin, and halting when he realized that it was instead a woman.

I think it stands to reason to say that Lechmere would not have made a longish halt out in the middle of the street, but instead one of a few seconds only, to reinterpret what he saw. After that, if Paul did not arrive, he would either have decided to leave the woman and walk on, or he would have walked over to her to see if he could help out in any way. You don´t remain standing for a minute or two in the middle of the street, and indeed, Lechmere himself says that it was when he had stepped out into the street and stopped that he heard Paul approaching from thirty, forty yards away.

So it is an almighty coincidence that Paul arrived precisely in those few seconds, Abby is correct on that score. And it remains a mystery that Paul did not notice Lechmere walking in front of him before that.

I also concur that Lechmere acted oddly at the site, but as Patrick pointed out, Andy Griffiths did not see anything odd about it, and I can buy that. After that, one can of course talk about how it is interesting that Patrick accepts what Griffiths says in this case, while disbeliving him on other matters...

[Patrick S]

I will make a few remarks since I have - with a fair measure of incredulity - read the posts on this thread.

Let´s begin with Harry, who, commended on his effort by Herlock Sholmes, posted this:

"One misconception is that Cross must be considered a suspect simply because he was at the crime scene.In my opinion,that is not so.While his own admission puts him at the crime scene,no evidence of an incriminating nature,connects him to the crime.They are separate issues.They each require their own particular proofs."

It is extremely odd that posters will go on claiming these kinds of things on my behalf. I have repeatedly stated that there is nothing at all incriminating in finding a victim - just as is often stated out here, somebody has to.

What happens if you find a victim in the kind of circumstances we have in this case, where the finder fits the overall time scheme and may therefore have been the killer, is that the finder immediately becomes a "person of interest".
After that, it is the developments of the case that governs if the finder will become a suspect.
If he can be cleared, he is written of the list of possible suspects.
If he cannot, he remains a potential suspect, and the police will take a very close look at him if there is no other suspect at hand.
If information should surface during this investigation that points in his way, in the shape of factual information or of him lying, chances are he will turn into an outright suspect.
I submit that the victorian police should have investigated him, but I also submit that this was never done, and I suspect it owes to how he came forward on bis own account.

What remains, and what I would very dearly want respected is that nobody is saying that finding a victim is suspicious per se.

If evidence surfaces that points in your way, however, then having been found with the victim does not help your cause, and will certainly be used by the prosecution should there be a court case.

In hope this clears this misconception up once and for all.

Let this stand as a disclaimer to several of your acolytes that continue posting about the nefariousness of having been found near a "freshly killed" (God...I love that term) corpse.