The Nature of Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

Middlesex member myself. So apart from last year been 20 years of tears.
Yesterday was typical. No ability to adapt. Actually Saturday was worse in my view..

Yes that sounds good to meet up.
Spent much of today typing up comments on press reports.
If nothing else my project will put all in one place for others to use.

Next job is Mitre square. Less to work with but I have a feeling the key is there. Had it for ages.

Steve

Getting all the strands together would be good. I'm looking forward to hearing your conclusion too.

My memories of Middlesex are Wayne Daniel, Mike Brearley, Clive Radley, Edmonds and Emburey etc. I noticed that Vincent Van Der Bijl was at the test. Looks slimmer now than he was then!
I get a bit annoyed when I hear players saying 'well that's how I play' after they play a shot like Bairstow did. I'd say, well if your that one dimensional maybe test cricket's not for you?

Regards
Herlock

[John G]

Excellent analysis, Steve. And I, too, would be interested in seeing your work on the "Mizen Scam".

By the way, did Payne James, in the documentary, express the view that Nichols died as a consequence of the neck injuries? Did he say whether he thought the abdominal injuries came before the neck cut?

[Elamarna]

Excellent analysis, Steve. And I, too, would be interested in seeing your work on the "Mizen Scam".

By the way, did Payne James, in the documentary, express the view that Nichols died as a consequence of the neck injuries? Did he say whether he thought the abdominal injuries came before the neck cut?

He suggests strangulation first then neck. He proposes far less extensive wounds to the abdomen than is now proposed and the model used to show the wounds does NOT include any long vertical wounds which is a little odd in itself.
No where does he suggest the abdomen first.

Steve

[John G]

He suggests strangulation first then neck. He proposes far less extensive wounds to the abdomen than is now proposed and the model used to show the wounds does NOT include any long vertical wounds which is a little odd in itself.
No where does he suggest the abdomen first.

Steve

Thanks Steve. It's just what I thought.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;422378]The Nature of Evidence. (Part 1)

It is clear that the case against Lechmere is based on, or rather uses several types of "evidence" and argument.

1. Hard Factual: this includes all the official records we have relating to the Life of Charles Lechmere. Here we have birth, death and marriage records, census records and apparently all the official documents bearing his name.

Hi Steve,

That is not evidence but sources. Historical facts are established on sources and used as evidence.

So we always have source(s) - establishing historical facts - use of these established facts as evidence in history writing.

The sources here described (official records) must not always be "factual" but they often have that external function.

2. The second type of evidence used is what I shall refer to as extrapolation.
This is the taking of known historical facts such Lechmere and Paul meeting with Mizen and then constructing a scenario that has little basis in the available facts, but lots in assumptions and possibilities that fit in with Lechmere as the killer. Of course the nature of this is that it is very difficult to disprove suggestions given the dearth of evidence in general.

That is the interpretation of sources. "Known historical facts" are more or less well established. "Available facts" also. They are the result of interpretation.

And all these established facts must be the result of source criticism.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;422382]The Nature of Evidence. (Part 4)

It's only when one can both prove a theory and then fail to disprove it, that one truly has a solid hypothesis.

One could prove an hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and still not have a solid hypothesis.

For example if there is an hypothesis postulating a relation or correlation, and it could be spurious.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;422448]

The Nature of Evidence. (Part 1)



Hi Steve,

That is not evidence but sources. Historical facts are established on sources and used as evidence.

So we always have source(s) - establishing historical facts - use of these established facts as evidence in history writing.

The sources here described (official records) must not always be "factual" but they often have that external function.

I was trying to put things in language most would understand. For many posters here evidence and sources are seen as the same.
However I accept you point

That is the interpretation of sources. "Known historical facts" are more or less well established. "Available facts" also. They are the result of interpretation.

And all these established facts must be the result of source criticism.

And that is the issue is it not. That the intpretation is based what fits rather than the sources.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;422449]

The Nature of Evidence. (Part 4)

It's only when one can both prove a theory and then fail to disprove it, that one truly has a solid hypothesis.

One could prove an hypothesis and fail to disprove it, and still not have a solid hypothesis.

For example if there is an hypothesis postulating a relation or correlation, and it could be spurious.

Pierre

My dear friend you are with such an example correct. However surely you agree one should try both approaches in this case?
Which was the point I was making.

Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

He suggests strangulation first then neck. He proposes far less extensive wounds to the abdomen than is now proposed and the model used to show the wounds does NOT include any long vertical wounds which is a little odd in itself.
No where does he suggest the abdomen first.

Steve

Hi Steve

As you know ive studiously avoided the medical debate due to my own ignorance of all things biological. Correct me if I'm wrong but Llewelyn believed at first that the wounds to the abdomen came before the throat? Later he changed his mind?
Payne Jones suggests strangulation first.
From a layman's point of view (and without evidence to the contrary we would have to call CL a layman on medical matters) it's surely makes little sense that the killer would go abdomen first. He would want to first silence then stop the breathing. The throat is the obvious target. Even after strangulation, because the killer not being a medic, he wouldn't be 100% sure that she wasn't still alive and couldn't wake up screaming. The throat would be obvious.

Have I got this wrong Steve? I know it's complex and I'm over-simplifying things but I just wanted to know if I'd got the gyst of things?

Regards
Herlock

[harry]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.