The Nature of Evidence

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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?

[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

[Pierre]

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

Hi Herlock,

what "facts" exactly?

Cheers, Pierre

[Patrick S]

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?

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?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;422600]

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.

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 don´t.

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.

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

Because he knew nothing about it.

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.

Yes, there is. Read my analysis.

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

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

[Patrick S]

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

He's so unreliable, he probably wasn't even in Buck's Row.