The Nature of Evidence

[Elamarna]

I donīt care what comes to your mind. If you think you can forbid other posters to make general observations, you are dead wrong. If you think general observations do not apply out here, you are dead wrong.
So just take your pick, and be done with it.

What a strange reply, no one has forbidden anyone to make any observations.
All that has been said, is that given the layout of properties in Bucks Row simple analysis of which side a policeman on his beat would walk cannot be applied to determine which side he entered Bucks Row from.

We are not talking about an individual member of the public walking down a street, but a Policeman doing a specific task. Crossing from side to side has a purpose in this instance.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Yes it would be good to see the Star and the Echo reports of the 3rd;However these do not appear to be avaible.

I agree with much of your content, It is clear that the report is from a different reporter, or at the very least heavily altered by the editor from other reports..
However while the wording is different the information provided is very similar.
The only real differences being the Evening Post is the only paper not to give a side for Neil and the only to say which side the body is on.

If anyone has the wording from the Star or Echo it would maybe clear this up.
Until such it remains a possibility no more I accept.

Steve

The similarity is mindboggling, I agree with that. If it owes to the reporter having heard Neil say "I was on the right hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street", it could perhaps help explain the reporters choice of wording and the similarity borne out of it.

Either way, itīs one more of them infuriating things that are so common in this case.

[FrankO]

For the record, I donīt want this discussion to topple over into some idea that I think that Neil MUST have come from the south or the north or whatever.

It’s good that you post this, because I did get the impression that this was also a point you wanted make, Fish.

All we know is that we do not know. Full stop.

Amen to that. Full stop.

[Fisherman]

What a strange reply, no one has forbidden anyone to make any observations.
All that has been said, is that given the layout of properties in Bucks Row simple analysis of which side a policeman on his beat would walk cannot be applied to determine which side he entered Bucks Row from.

We are not talking about an individual member of the public walking down a street, but a Policeman doing a specific task. Crossing from side to side has a purpose in this instance.


Steve

It is not a strange reply at all, Steve. It is the result of the frustration I feel whenever you make yourself the interpretor of what I say and get it wrong.

Whenever we assess a case, we WILL work from general rules and principles. Our perception of the world is grounded on it. When somebody drops a stone, we make the assumption that it will fall to the ground.

Therefore, no other parameters involved, the assumption that Neil would have used the northern pavement if he took a left turn coming down from Thomas Street into Bucks Row is a very logical one, in fact THE most logical one.

Beat rules, topography, whims, meetings, obstacles and many more things may have changed that, but it would NOT change the overall viability of what I am saying.

One thing we may be certain of is that none of us is going to be able to pin down the exact route he walked, and another certain thing is that any further disucssion of this will lead to nothing but further inflammation of the matter.

My suggestion is therefore that we leave the issue, and make a try to be a bit more productive.
It seems I keep coming back to that stance.

[Elamarna]

For the record, I donīt want this discussion to topple over into some idea that I think that Neil MUST have come from the south or the north or whatever.
If there is somebody who applies no must in all of this, itīs me - I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street.

All we know is that we do not know. Full stop.

How differently people see things.

This debate started back in post 101 when Fish posted :

"Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot."

I then responded in post 159 saying that entry from Thomas was not a given, not a proven truth and that in my opinion entry from Queen Ann was as likely, if not more so .

Fish replied with the quote from the Evening News in post 163 to which I gave a response in post 167.

I do not see at any point that entry from Queen Ann has been presented as a truth, an option along with Thomas certainly and to me the more likely but has I have made clear many times it hardly matters which in the overall view of Bucks Row.


Steve

[Elamarna]

It is not a strange reply at all, Steve. It is the result of the frustration I feel whenever you make yourself the interpretor of what I say and get it wrong.

Whenever we assess a case, we WILL work from general rules and principles. Our perception of the world is grounded on it. When somebody drops a stone, we make the assumption that it will fall to the ground.

Therefore, no other parameters involved, the assumption that Neil would have used the northern pavement if he took a left turn coming down from Thomas Street into Bucks Row is a very logical one, in fact THE most logical one.

Beat rules, topography, whims, meetings, obstacles and many more things may have changed that, but it would NOT change the overall viability of what I am saying.

One thing we may be certain of is that none of us is going to be able to pin down the exact route he walked, and another certain thing is that any further disucssion of this will lead to nothing but further inflammation of the matter.

My suggestion is therefore that we leave the issue, and make a try to be a bit more productive.
It seems I keep coming back to that stance.

And that is the issue that you believe we can apply general views and use those, I do not, we start from the general and then should apply the specifics. That you chose not to is your right of course.

However I am happy to stop here until I give my full view later.


Steve

[Fisherman]

How differently people see things.

This debate started back in post 101 when Fish posted :

"Neil will have entered Bucks Row from Thomas Street, walking at a measured speed, and he will have needed perhaps two minutes or more to make it down to the murder spot."

I then responded in post 159 saying that entry from Thomas was not a given, not a proven truth and that in my opinion entry from Queen Ann was as likely, if not more so .

Fish replied with the quote from the Evening News in post 163 to which I gave a response in post 167.

I do not see at any point that entry from Queen Ann has been presented as a truth, an option along with Thomas certainly and to me the more likely but has I have made clear many times it hardly matters which in the overall view of Bucks Row.


Steve

Queen Anne Street is not proposed or mentioned in any of the reports. Thomas Street is, and it is said that Neil walked Bucks Row from Thomas Street.

It makes it the better bid in my view, but as I just said to Frank, there is no way of being sure either way.

One point I will make but not press (since I have seen this kind of point pressed far too often) is that I think that Neil will have been asked to give his route in as detailed a fashion as possible, and that if he DID come down from Queen Anne Street, he would have said so and it would have been recorded by the press. However, as I said, I have seen the point "he would have said it, he would have done it" too many times to feel to confident about things. Itīs just a feeling I have.

Is that clear enough? Or do we roll me in tar and feathers for having said that I prefer Thomas Street as the one he entered Bucks Row from?

[Fisherman]

And that is the issue that you believe we can apply general views and use those, I do not, we start from the general and then should apply the specifics. That you chose not to is your right of course.

However I am happy to stop here until I give my full view later.


Steve

When you say we start from the general, you acknowledge that I am correct, so thanks for that.

If you say that I do not apply the specifics, you are wrong.

[Elamarna]

Queen Anne Street is not proposed or mentioned in any of the reports. Thomas Street is, and it is said that Neil walked Bucks Row from Thomas Street.

It makes it the better bid in my view, but as I just said to Frank, there is no way of being sure either way.

One point I will make but not press (since I have seen this kind of point pressed far too often) is that I think that Neil will have been asked to give his route in as detailed a fashion as possible, and that if he DID come down from Queen Anne Street, he would have said so and it would have been recorded by the press. However, as I said, I have seen the point "he would have said it, he would have done it" too many times to feel to confident about things. Itīs just a feeling I have.

Is that clear enough? Or do we roll me in tar and feathers for having said that I prefer Thomas Street as the one he entered Bucks Row from?

I see you actually miss the point of the post.

You said in post # 390

-" I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street."

When I only raised Queen Ann Street in post # 159 saying exactly the same to You about Thomas street.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I see you actually miss the point of the post.

You said in post # 390

-" I only took up the debate because others seemed to try to make it a truth that Neil came from Queen Anne Street."

When I only raised Queen Ann Street in post # 159 saying exactly the same to You about Thomas street.


Steve

Queen Anne Street was treated as a certainty. It is not.

Thomas Street is mentioned in a number of reports, stating that Neil was walking down Bucks Row from that very street. Whether that was a mere pointing out of directions or a statement about from where he entered Bucks Row cannot be established, but at least there is something speaking for Thomas Street being the point of arrival in Bucks Row. Nothing in the reports anchor any belief that he came from Queen Anne Street.

I did not say that Thomas Street was a certainy. And it is not.

The post 159 you refer to contained only this about Thomas Street, you being the autor:

"Why do you assume he entered from Thomas street, while it may have been Queen Ann street is more likely."

That is not you criticizing me for presenting Thomas Street as a fact - it is you questioning why I assume that he came from Thomas Street, something there is a basis for suggesting, going by the articles. And then you go on to state that Queen Anne Street is more likely. Which is your idea, and you are welcome to it, but it is no fact.

He could have come from either street, and he could have come from the south or the north.

That is my whole point - you may THINK he came from Queen Anne Street, and that is fine. But thatīs as far as it goes.

Do you want to continue this painfully stupid and fruitless debate, or should we perhaps - as I keep suggesting - do something better?

[Pierre]

Queen Anne Street was treated as a certainty. It is not.

Thomas Street is mentioned in a number of reports, stating that Neil was walking down Bucks Row from that very street. Whether that was a mere pointing out of directions or a statement about from where he entered Bucks Row cannot be established, but at least there is something speaking for Thomas Street being the point of arrival in Bucks Row. Nothing in the reports anchor any belief that he came from Queen Anne Street.

I did not say that Thomas Street was a certainy. And it is not.

He could have come from either street, and he could have come from the south or the north.

That is my whole point - you may THINK he came from Queen Anne Street, and that is fine. But thatīs as far as it goes.

Do you want to continue this painfully stupid and fruitless debate, or should we perhaps - as I keep suggesting - do something better?

I donīt believe it is stupid. I think Steve has some purpose discussing this.

Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

At the west end of Buck's Row were the Board School and Schneider's factory, opposite each other. Both of them reportedly contained night watchmen, with whom beat PCs tended to check in with as they passed. There are no buildings immediately east of either, so the obvious route would be for Neil to cross the road at this point. Therefore whichever side of the street Neil started on is more or less irrelevant, I think.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One point that I might get Fish's opinion on is the one that I've made several times before with no response.

First part, do you think that the killer was the type of killer that just attacked on the spur of the moment. I believe that the phrase is 'a disorganised' killer? Obviously bearing in mind that he avoided capture.

Or, secondly, do you think it more likely that he actually 'set out' to kill. Likely after an urge built up in him? And remembering that for many serial killers 'the hunt' is all part of the excitement.

If it's the second point (and it's surely the far more likely option) then do you feel that a killer would leave himself only 30 minutes to find and kill a prostitute and still get to work on time. Bearing in mind that most of that 30 minutes would have been taken up by the simple act of walking from Doveton Street to Broad Street. And bearing in mind that Buck's Row wasn't a known soliciting area so he couldn't have 'expected' to be so lucky as to find a victim on his work route.

Regards

Herlock

[Elamarna]

Queen Anne Street was treated as a certainty. It is not.

Thomas Street is mentioned in a number of reports, stating that Neil was walking down Bucks Row from that very street. Whether that was a mere pointing out of directions or a statement about from where he entered Bucks Row cannot be established, but at least there is something speaking for Thomas Street being the point of arrival in Bucks Row. Nothing in the reports anchor any belief that he came from Queen Anne Street.

I did not say that Thomas Street was a certainy. And it is not.

The post 159 you refer to contained only this about Thomas Street, you being the autor:

"Why do you assume he entered from Thomas street, while it may have been Queen Ann street is more likely."

That is not you criticizing me for presenting Thomas Street as a fact - it is you questioning why I assume that he came from Thomas Street, something there is a basis for suggesting, going by the articles. And then you go on to state that Queen Anne Street is more likely. Which is your idea, and you are welcome to it, but it is no fact.

He could have come from either street, and he could have come from the south or the north.

That is my whole point - you may THINK he came from Queen Anne Street, and that is fine. But thatīs as far as it goes.

Do you want to continue this painfully stupid and fruitless debate, or should we perhaps - as I keep suggesting - do something better?

Queen Ann street was not portrayed as a certainty, my wording in post # 159 was just as you posted. It is not presenting it as a certainty is it? I made it clear in post 167 that oI would present a case for such in part 3. However I accepted he could have entered by Thomas:

However he could double back from Queen Ann to Thomas but it makes no logic If he did.
Which ever it makes little difference to when Neil arrives.


If you feel it was portrayed as a certainty before your post # 344 could you point it out please


Thomas street is one of two realistic and probably entry points into Bucks Row, to me it is the less favourite but ultimately it is unimportant which was used.

The suggestion that entry was from the South is NOT supported by the sources which say:

a. The beat took 30 minutes .

b. The beat included the Northern section.


It is far from a stupid debate, while of little impact on Neil's finding the body, it is highly interesting from an academic point of view, however if it's of not interest to you I suggest you ignore it until I post full details.

I am doing far better things as I type, finishing off part 2, having a pint and taking on board all you say, so I miss nothing in part 3. Very many thanks by the way.

However if you post on the subject and I disagree of course I will respond, such is the way of things

Steve

[Patrick S]

Whenever we assess a case, we WILL work from general rules and principles. Our perception of the world is grounded on it. When somebody drops a stone, we make the assumption that it will fall to the ground.

Ah. General rules and principals. Our perception of the world. Fair enough.

Although, it does seem as if these guidelines are precisely what you endlessly argue against when it comes to any analysis of Cross, his life, his actions on the night of the Nichols' murder and at the inquest into her death.

For instance, Cross "raises the alarm" to Robert Paul, asks for his aid, "Come see this woman." If we make an assumption that this stone will fall to the ground, then we view Cross as what he presented himself to be: a man who found a woman lying on the pavement and told the first living soul he encountered. For you, however, this stone cannot fall to earth: Cross killed Nichols and his enlistment of Paul's help was a bluff designed to aid his escape. As well, his actions are symptomatic of his psychopathy.

We also know that Cross escaped Buck's Row, unnamed, unsuspected, almost entirely unmentioned, in fact. Yet, we know he showed up at the inquest of his own accord. Ah! But we mustn't wait for this stone to fall to the earth either, for that would have us view Cross as a only a witness, the finder of a body. This stone, like the one before it and so many others, vanishes. Because, we're to believe that Cross voluntarily submitted himself to interrogation at the inquest not for reasons based upon any "general rules or principals", not to perform a civic duty upon seeing his actions described in print ala Leon Goldstein, but to perform another elaborate ruse designed to evade suspicion, further evidence that he was a psychopath.

You seem to be applying a new set of rule, Christer. I want to be sure I understand them so that we can apply them to you, as well.