The Nature of Evidence

[Pierre]

I think that's all true. I think it's also important to remember that Paul fails to contradict Cross on any key point.

With respect to finding Nichols on the pavement:

Cross testified at the inquest that he "heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me.......and said, "Come and look at this woman." As well, Paul testified at the inquest that he "saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

With respect to meeting Mizen in Baker's Row:

Cross testified that "he and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met (PC Jonas Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "told (Mizen) what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

Recall that Mizen testified that he was approached by "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying." Mizen doesn't say that he was told the woman was dead, or likely dead, while both Paul and Cross say that he was told that she was dead.

Recall, also, in the Nichols' inquest, Cross was asked if he'd told Mizen a PC wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. He flatly contradicted PC Mizen's testimony, saying, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

In Paul's inquest testimony he said that he "walked with him (Cross) to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." There's no mention of another PC, in Buck's Row or otherwise.

Paul testified on September 17, two weeks after Cross contradicted the testimony of PC Mizen. Yet, it appears from the reportage that he wasn't even asked if anyone had told Mizen that PC had sent them from Buck's Row. This is noteworthy because Paul said this in Lloyd's on September 2: "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Not only does Paul make it clear that no policeman had sent he and Cross from Buck's Row to retrieve Mizen, but he states explicitly that - in his view - the police had been negligent in their duties. Mizen "calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Nichols was "so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die.......If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

Paul's statement in Lloyd's - his bald faced indictment of Mizen and the performance of the Met police in general - wasn't asked about. He wasn't asked if Mizen was told the woman was dead. He wasn't asked if anyone had told PC Mizen that a policeman had been in Buck's Row, sending them to find him (Mizen) in Baker's Row.

I have been analysing:

1) The article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper - Sunday 02 September 1888
2) The police summary of Abberline19 September 1888
3) The police summary of Swanson 19 October 1888

Result:

We start with the article in Lloyd's Weekly Newspaper.

The source has a tendency which signifies that the witness is systematically making strong remarks aimed at being used for criticizing the police.

Here are the examples:

”The dangerous character of the locality”

”....being on guard, for there are many terrible gangs about.”

”There have been many knocked down and robbed at that spot”.

Paul is making strong remarks about the area where the police work.

”She was dead and the hands cold”.

”I thought that she had been outraged, and had died in the struggle”

These are strong statements and the witness sounds as if he is 100 percent certain. This does not mean the statement is without tendency. As we will se, he makes the statements for criticising the police.

”He (the policeman) continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

The woman was so cold she must have been dead some time and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there.

If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

The tendency of the witness is clear. He is criticizing the police. The police is the object of ”A great shame”.

So the first source has a tendency, which dominates the whole narrative in the article. Therefore, this source is not a reliable source.

Pierre

[Abby Normal]

dosnt it strike anyone a little bit odd that paul just happened to come across (and see) lech as hes standing near the body of a recently killed body before hes raised any kind of alarm?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's be clear Herlock I do not think we be able to disprove the possible guilt of Lechmere with regards to Primarily Nichols or any of the victims suggested by Fisherman. However it is entirely possible that some of the ideas which have been proposed to support his canditure will be demonstrated to be either extremely weak and open to alternative stronger intpretations or just incorrect.

My work is not about proving Lechmere's guilt or innocent but to provide a full reassessment of the sources. This as a by product may end up weakening the case against Lechmere, when I began I did not know which way some things would fall, and on some issues I am still not sure.

This is why I don't post my findings yet on either the Mizen Scam or the blood evidence. It is still possible after part 2 is poster I could change my mind. If I posted those findings now before the work is complete I could end up looking very silly and very arrogant when I had to admit I was wrong.
The whole idea was to get input from others.


Steve

That's me told.

I understand and respect your approach.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

I completely agree with your approach. It mirrors my own. The goal should be to present one's research and any possible, associated conclusions that may be reasonably be drawn and allow that to stand - on it's own. Allow others to evaluate, contrast with conclusions others may have you draw, and decide.

Along these lines, I'm looking closely at Mizen, Neil, and Thain in Buck's Row. I will likely see how tightly I can pull it together in the coming weeks as it may fit nicely with what you're working on.

You are on the right tracks there. All 3 are used in my analysis.

Looking forward to discussing it in a few weeks.

Steve

[Patrick S]

Let's be clear Herlock I do not think we be able to disprove the possible guilt of Lechmere with regards to Primarily Nichols or any of the victims suggested by Fisherman. However it is entirely possible that some of the ideas which have been proposed to support his canditure will be demonstrated to be either extremely weak and open to alternative stronger intpretations or just incorrect.

My work is not about proving Lechmere's guilt or innocent but to provide a full reassessment of the sources. This as a by product may end up weakening the case against Lechmere, when I began I did not know which way some things would fall, and on some issues I am still not sure.

This is why I don't post my findings yet on either the Mizen Scam or the blood evidence. It is still possible after part 2 is poster I could change my mind. If I posted those findings now before the work is complete I could end up looking very silly and very arrogant when I had to admit I was wrong.
The whole idea was to get input from others.


Steve

I completely agree with your approach. It mirrors my own. The goal should be to present one's research and any possible, associated conclusions that may be reasonably be drawn and allow that to stand - on it's own. Allow others to evaluate, contrast with conclusions others may have you draw, and decide.

Along these lines, I'm looking closely at Mizen, Neil, and Thain in Buck's Row. I will likely see how tightly I can pull it together in the coming weeks as it may fit nicely with what you're working on.

[Elamarna]

Cheers for that Steve. It's good to see the facts laid out in one space. I'm sure that between you, you and Patrick will provide an overwhelming case against CL's guilt.

Regards
Herlock

Let's be clear Herlock I do not think we be able to disprove the possible guilt of Lechmere with regards to Primarily Nichols or any of the victims suggested by Fisherman. However it is entirely possible that some of the ideas which have been proposed to support his canditure will be demonstrated to be either extremely weak and open to alternative stronger intpretations or just incorrect.

My work is not about proving Lechmere's guilt or innocent but to provide a full reassessment of the sources. This as a by product may end up weakening the case against Lechmere, when I began I did not know which way some things would fall, and on some issues I am still not sure.

This is why I don't post my findings yet on either the Mizen Scam or the blood evidence. It is still possible after part 2 is poster I could change my mind. If I posted those findings now before the work is complete I could end up looking very silly and very arrogant when I had to admit I was wrong.
The whole idea was to get input from others.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're welcome....and don't call me Steve (or Shirley).

I'm glad you touched on Robert Paul as the main actor in the Lloyd's statement. You may be right. Obviously interest and excitement was reaching a zenith in the hours and days following the murder. Paul may have become caught up in it, thus he marginalizes the role Cross played, and elevating his own. It may have been the reporters decision, wishing to stress or expand the role of the man he had in front of him, the man telling the tale, rather than the unnamed man whose words he wasn't putting on the page.

For me, as it relates to this business, that's another story. For this I try to concentrate on the substance of what Paul tell us, both in Lloyd's and at the inquest, and how it fits with what Cross and Mizen tell us.

I found early on that I was struggling to reconcile Paul's statements with the "Lechmere theory". That is to say, Christer's narrative asks us to look beyond Paul's words and assign motivations, make assumptions about his character, and create scenarios that must have existed for the "Mizen Scam" to have occurred, even though Paul relates NOTHING of it in either Lloyd's or at the inquest. It's been suggested, as you say, that he played up his role, in a bit a self-aggrandizement. It's been suggested, as well, that he held some grudge against the police, thus explaining his outrage over Mizen's perceived inaction and police allowing a woman to grow cold on the pavement. It's been suggested he was an unwitting dupe, used by "Lechmere" to bluff is way out of Buck's Row and to "scam" poor Jonas Mizen. Yet, clearly, there's no evidence for any of that.

For me, better to focus on his words, what he's telling us.

Couldn't agree more Patrick.

Sorry about the name.

Regards
Herlock

[Joshua Rogan]

...and police allowing a woman to grow cold on the pavement.

If Polly was as cold as Paul said in his interview, it kind of rules out Cross as her killer

[Patrick S]

Cheers for that Steve. It's good to see the facts laid out in one space. I'm sure that between you, you and Patrick will provide an overwhelming case against CL's guilt.

Regards
Herlock

You're welcome....and don't call me Steve (or Shirley).

I'm glad you touched on Robert Paul as the main actor in the Lloyd's statement. You may be right. Obviously interest and excitement was reaching a zenith in the hours and days following the murder. Paul may have become caught up in it, thus he marginalizes the role Cross played, and elevating his own. It may have been the reporters decision, wishing to stress or expand the role of the man he had in front of him, the man telling the tale, rather than the unnamed man whose words he wasn't putting on the page.

For me, as it relates to this business, that's another story. For this I try to concentrate on the substance of what Paul tell us, both in Lloyd's and at the inquest, and how it fits with what Cross and Mizen tell us.

I found early on that I was struggling to reconcile Paul's statements with the "Lechmere theory". That is to say, Christer's narrative asks us to look beyond Paul's words and assign motivations, make assumptions about his character, and create scenarios that must have existed for the "Mizen Scam" to have occurred, even though Paul relates NOTHING of it in either Lloyd's or at the inquest. It's been suggested, as you say, that he played up his role, in a bit a self-aggrandizement. It's been suggested, as well, that he held some grudge against the police, thus explaining his outrage over Mizen's perceived inaction and police allowing a woman to grow cold on the pavement. It's been suggested he was an unwitting dupe, used by "Lechmere" to bluff is way out of Buck's Row and to "scam" poor Jonas Mizen. Yet, clearly, there's no evidence for any of that.

For me, better to focus on his words, what he's telling us.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that's all true. I think it's also important to remember that Paul fails to contradict Cross on any key point.

With respect to finding Nichols on the pavement:

Cross testified at the inquest that he "heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me.......and said, "Come and look at this woman." As well, Paul testified at the inquest that he "saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

I wonder why Paul told Lloyd's that he went for a policeman alone? Bigging up his role maybe?

With respect to meeting Mizen in Baker's Row:

Cross testified that "he and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met (PC Jonas Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "told (Mizen) what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

"after I had told him..." possibly another example of Paul wanting to be the 'main man?'

Both said 'dead' though.

Recall that Mizen testified that he was approached by "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying." Mizen doesn't say that he was told the woman was dead, or likely dead, while both Paul and Cross say that he was told that she was dead.

'a carman who passed in company with ....'

No, out of earshot conversations here.

Recall, also, in the Nichols' inquest, Cross was asked if he'd told Mizen a PC wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. He flatly contradicted PC Mizen's testimony, saying, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

This always impresses me as an honest statement. You can almost imagine the confused look on his face. "Why would I say that if I hadn't seen a policeman?"

In Paul's inquest testimony he said that he "walked with him (Cross) to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." There's no mention of another PC, in Buck's Row or otherwise.

Paul testified on September 17, two weeks after Cross contradicted the testimony of PC Mizen. Yet, it appears from the reportage that he wasn't even asked if anyone had told Mizen that PC had sent them from Buck's Row. This is noteworthy because Paul said this in Lloyd's on September 2: "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Not only does Paul make it clear that no policeman had sent he and Cross from Buck's Row to retrieve Mizen, but he states explicitly that - in his view - the police had been negligent in their duties. Mizen "calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Nichols was "so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die.......If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

Of CL, Paul and Mizen its CL that comes across as the most honest here. It's surely more than likely that Mizen lied about being told that Nichols was dead and about a Constable in Bucks Row just to cover himself if asked by his superiors 'why didn't you detain the two men.' He could have replied 'I thought that she was just a drunk.'
At best, he might have just made a wrong assumption about the 'policeman' in Bucks Row. Maybe if CL or Paul had also said something like 'you're needed in Bucks Row,' and he took it to mean by a PC when they could have simply meant 'your presence is required in Bucks Row?'

Paul's statement in Lloyd's - his bald faced indictment of Mizen and the performance of the Met police in general - wasn't asked about. He wasn't asked if Mizen was told the woman was dead. He wasn't asked if anyone had told PC Mizen that a policeman had been in Buck's Row, sending them to find him (Mizen) in Baker's Row.

Cheers for that Steve. It's good to see the facts laid out in one space. I'm sure that between you, you and Patrick will provide an overwhelming case against CL's guilt.

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

Sounds great. I'm trying to find time to polish up some work I've had on the shelf regarding the known actions and statements of Paul, Cross, Mizen. I'll pack it along.

good between us i think we can come up with a sound idea.


steve

[Patrick S]

Hi Patrick,
just finished writing up first draft of my new Mizen scam, let you have a look at the conference. Maping evidence is very important, as is timing has Caz rightly said before.


Steve


steve

Sounds great. I'm trying to find time to polish up some work I've had on the shelf regarding the known actions and statements of Paul, Cross, Mizen. I'll pack it along.

[Elamarna]

I think that's all true. I think it's also important to remember that Paul fails to contradict Cross on any key point.

With respect to finding Nichols on the pavement:

Cross testified at the inquest that he "heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me.......and said, "Come and look at this woman." As well, Paul testified at the inquest that he "saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

With respect to meeting Mizen in Baker's Row:

Cross testified that "he and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met (PC Jonas Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "told (Mizen) what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

Recall that Mizen testified that he was approached by "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying." Mizen doesn't say that he was told the woman was dead, or likely dead, while both Paul and Cross say that he was told that she was dead.

Recall, also, in the Nichols' inquest, Cross was asked if he'd told Mizen a PC wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. He flatly contradicted PC Mizen's testimony, saying, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

In Paul's inquest testimony he said that he "walked with him (Cross) to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." There's no mention of another PC, in Buck's Row or otherwise.

Paul testified on September 17, two weeks after Cross contradicted the testimony of PC Mizen. Yet, it appears from the reportage that he wasn't even asked if anyone had told Mizen that PC had sent them from Buck's Row. This is noteworthy because Paul said this in Lloyd's on September 2: "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Not only does Paul make it clear that no policeman had sent he and Cross from Buck's Row to retrieve Mizen, but he states explicitly that - in his view - the police had been negligent in their duties. Mizen "calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Nichols was "so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die.......If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

Paul's statement in Lloyd's - his bald faced indictment of Mizen and the performance of the Met police in general - wasn't asked about. He wasn't asked if Mizen was told the woman was dead. He wasn't asked if anyone had told PC Mizen that a policeman had been in Buck's Row, sending them to find him (Mizen) in Baker's Row.

Hi Patrick,
just finished writing up first draft of my new Mizen scam, let you have a look at the conference. Maping evidence is very important, as is timing has Caz rightly said before.


Steve


steve

[Patrick S]

Hello Harry

Exactly. Robert Paul is so important here because his appearance allows those who believe CL to be guilty to imply that Paul somehow disturbed him in the act. This is absolutely not the case as we know that CL could have easily walked, or even run, away to freedom yet he chose to stay and await Paul's arrival. If Paul hadn't arrived, and CL the finder of the body had just found Mizen alone, he would not be a suspect now.

Regards
Herlock

I think that's all true. I think it's also important to remember that Paul fails to contradict Cross on any key point.

With respect to finding Nichols on the pavement:

Cross testified at the inquest that he "heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement."

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me.......and said, "Come and look at this woman." As well, Paul testified at the inquest that he "saw in Buck's-row a man standing in the middle of the road. As witness drew closer he walked towards the pavement, and he (Paul) stepped in the roadway to pass him. The man touched witness on the shoulder and asked him to look at the woman, who was lying across the gateway."

With respect to meeting Mizen in Baker's Row:

Cross testified that "he and the other man left the deceased, and in Baker's-row they met (PC Jonas Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on.

Paul said in Lloyd's that he "told (Mizen) what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead.

Recall that Mizen testified that he was approached by "a carman who passed in company with another man informed him that he was wanted by a policeman in Buck's-row, where a woman was lying." Mizen doesn't say that he was told the woman was dead, or likely dead, while both Paul and Cross say that he was told that she was dead.

Recall, also, in the Nichols' inquest, Cross was asked if he'd told Mizen a PC wanted by a PC in Buck's Row. He flatly contradicted PC Mizen's testimony, saying, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

In Paul's inquest testimony he said that he "walked with him (Cross) to Montague-street, and there they saw a policeman. Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman." There's no mention of another PC, in Buck's Row or otherwise.

Paul testified on September 17, two weeks after Cross contradicted the testimony of PC Mizen. Yet, it appears from the reportage that he wasn't even asked if anyone had told Mizen that PC had sent them from Buck's Row. This is noteworthy because Paul said this in Lloyd's on September 2: "I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead. The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see. Her bonnet was lying about two feet from her head."

Not only does Paul make it clear that no policeman had sent he and Cross from Buck's Row to retrieve Mizen, but he states explicitly that - in his view - the police had been negligent in their duties. Mizen "calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead." Nichols was "so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die.......If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time."

Paul's statement in Lloyd's - his bald faced indictment of Mizen and the performance of the Met police in general - wasn't asked about. He wasn't asked if Mizen was told the woman was dead. He wasn't asked if anyone had told PC Mizen that a policeman had been in Buck's Row, sending them to find him (Mizen) in Baker's Row.

[caz]

Similarly, had Paul - or indeed PC Neil - passed along Buck's Row earlier, it could have been Cross arriving a little later to 'find' either or both men with Nichols.

Had Cross arrived any earlier than he did, he might well have seen the killer running away.

It's all in the timing.

Love,

Caz
X