The Nature of Evidence

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Pierre;422643]

Hi Patrick,

why should the statements with reference to Paul "fit" the statements with reference to Cross and Mizen?

Paul had his own interest. He was not a friend of Cross or Mizen.

Do you know why Paul wanted to criticize the police?

I donīt.



Indeed. So why did Paul not relate anything of the statements in the so called Mizen Scam?

Because he knew nothing about it.



Yes, there is. Read my analysis.



We never just "focus on" words. We always have a bias. Your bias is that you want to disprove the Lechmere idea. That is OK. But if you want it to be solid you should use a scientific method.

Cheers, Pierre

Thanks, Pierre. I try not to read much of what you post when you're giving free lessons on how to be a crackerjack historian, pointing out issues with, well, any work you haven't done (even as we've yet to see your much touted work product). Save the keystrokes. I'm not interested. Thanks.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Patrick S;422641

What kind of alarm should have been raised? Let's exclude anything Cross tells us. Let's focus only on Robert Paul's statements. Paul told Lloyd's:

"It was too dark to see the blood about her."

His inquest testimony was reported:

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."

So. According to Paul it was too dark to see any blood or injuries from a distance of only a few inches. Further, he detected no injuries upon touching the woman, even thinking she may be alive. But, it's your expectation that Cross, observed by Paul standing several yards from the woman, should have immediately known the woman had been recently (freshly, even!) killed and raised the alarm?

Indeed: Here is your bias! "Focusing" "only" (exclusively!) on Paulīs statements = It was too dark. = He detected no injuries. BUT: It is your opponents expactation that...

So you draw the conclusion that THIS was the past - by using what you call "focusing". You exclude the rest of the sources. And indeed you say:

Let's exclude anything Cross tells us.

Not an acceptable method for disproving the Lechmere "theory".

Pierre

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Patrick S;422646

Thanks, Pierre. I try not to read much of what you post when you're giving free lessons on how to be a crackerjack historian, pointing out issues with, well, any work you haven't done (even as we've yet to see your much touted work product). Save the keystrokes. I'm not interested. Thanks.

Rude.

Pierre

[Patrick S]

QUOTE=Patrick S;422646



Rude.

Pierre

Honest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Hi Abby

To be honest I don't find it at all strange. CL finds the body. As he does he hears someone approaching. He steps over to talk to him. If Paul hadn't have turned up I've no doubt that CL would have gone on to find a Constable. To be honest though, I don't think that he'd have been too bothered if he hadn't come across one as his priority was to get to work on time. If he'd have gotten to work without seeing one I'm sure that he'd have told himself 'well someone will have found her by now.' Or 'The beat copper on Bucks Row will have found her by now.'

Regards
Herlock

[Abby Normal]

What kind of alarm should have been raised? Let's exclude anything Cross tells us. Let's focus only on Robert Paul's statements. Paul told Lloyd's:

"It was too dark to see the blood about her."

His inquest testimony was reported:

"He felt her hands and face, and they were cold. The clothes were disarranged, and he helped to pull them down. Before he did so he detected a slight movement as of breathing, but very faint."

So. According to Paul it was too dark to see any blood or injuries from a distance of only a few inches. Further, he detected no injuries upon touching the woman, even thinking she may be alive. But, it's your expectation that Cross, observed by Paul standing several yards from the woman, should have immediately known the woman had been recently (freshly, even!) killed and raised the alarm?

I suggest that the "alarm" raised by Cross was perfectly appropriate. He told the first person he met - even though the man tried to avoid him - that there was a woman lying on the ground, requesting that the man come and have a look, ostensibly to render assistance. Is it your opinion that Cross, absent viewing blood or injuries, should have begun screaming bloody murder and pounding on doors?

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.

[Elamarna]

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?

Not really Abby it depends on how far in front of Paul that Lechmere arrived.
If we subscribe to the idea that Paul is accurate with his 3.45 timing it does raise questions. However we have 3 seperate Police officers whom all give testimony which contradicts Paul on this issue.

Personally I see no reason to suppose Lechmere was anymore than 30 - 40 seconds in front of Paul. My reasoning for this is in the Bucks Row Project part 1 , my post 4 but thread post number 16.

Cheers

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

To be honest I don't find it at all strange. CL finds the body. As he does he hears someone approaching. He steps over to talk to him. If Paul hadn't have turned up I've no doubt that CL would have gone on to find a Constable. To be honest though, I don't think that he'd have been too bothered if he hadn't come across one as his priority was to get to work on time. If he'd have gotten to work without seeing one I'm sure that he'd have told himself 'well someone will have found her by now.' Or 'The beat copper on Bucks Row will have found her by now.'

Regards
Herlock

cool. just seems odd to me.

you know what else struck me as odd, that your post reminded me. Before I had ever heard anything about lech as a suspect, when I read the way the interaction unfolded between lech and paul, it struck me as weird the way lech informs Paul. he waits for him to get to him, and as paul is trying to avoid him, he goes toward him and taps him on the shoulder. dosnt call him over as he nears. Or Paul dosnt see as he approaches and asks whats going on here.

hes trying to avoid lech, nothing is said, and lech gets to within physically touching him before he speaks a word.

isn't that weird? if I was paul I would been like wTF? probably in flight or fight mode if that was me. and does seem like paul might have been alittle scared.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Could I get everyone's opinion please?

You'll guess where I'm going with this and probably think it's almost a hobby horse of mine but hey...

Do we think that the ripper actually set out to kill or was he someone who acted on the spur of the moment no matter what the circumstances?

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

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

Hi Pierre

Yes there is a tendency that is clear, but is that because of general anger at the police or specific anger with Mizen?
The comment about no one having been in Bucks Row in a long time certainly suggests a general dislike of the police.

I think we have to be careful in how we use such a source, his observations on Mizen in particular should not be seen as entirely accurate such as when he says that Mizen carried on knocking people up. This implies he did not stop, Mizen on the other hand agrees he finished the knock up he was on but no more. Lechmere does not back Paul up on this particular issue.

I think as a rough narrative of the course of events it has some value. However I would not take anything specific which is not corroborated by Lechmere as a anything like reliable myself.


Steve

[John G]

Could I get everyone's opinion please?

You'll guess where I'm going with this and probably think it's almost a hobby horse of mine but hey...

Do we think that the ripper actually set out to kill or was he someone who acted on the spur of the moment no matter what the circumstances?

Regards
Herlock

I think he probably just roamed the streets, during periods when it was either dark or gloomy, looking for suitable victims.

[Elamarna]

Hi Herlock,

what "facts" exactly?

Cheers, Pierre

Good point Pierre

So far all that has been posted are timings based on the sources.

The next section is the sources. It will be good to have all of these on one thread rather than all over the site. I am sure that is what Herlock meant.
However it's not happened just yet, still a few weeks (1 or 2 ) off I fear

After which we will have analysis and theory based on the analysis. However that will certainly not be fact either.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Could I get everyone's opinion please?

You'll guess where I'm going with this and probably think it's almost a hobby horse of mine but hey...

Do we think that the ripper actually set out to kill or was he someone who acted on the spur of the moment no matter what the circumstances?

Regards
Herlock

he set out to kill. he was a hunter and prepared accordingly.

now that being said, I imagine he probably always carried a knife with him, if the opportunity arose even if he wasn't on peak urge period.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Good point Pierre

So far all that has been posted are timings based on the sources.

The next section is the sources. It will be good to have all of these on one thread rather than all over the site. I am sure that is what Herlock meant.
However it's not happened just yet, still a few weeks (1 or 2 ) off I fear

After which we will have analysis and theory based on the analysis. However that will certainly not be fact either.

Steve

It was what I meant. I wasn't being very exact.

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think he probably just roamed the streets, during periods when it was either dark or gloomy, looking for suitable victims.

Thanks John

Regards
Herlock