The Nature of Evidence

[Sam Flynn]

To simplify my point. CL left home at 3.30 (I know that The Times said 3.40, but as per the documentary Fish I think that you accept 3.30 as likeliest time?) He was due at work at 4.00. I can't recall from Steve's research how long it would take to walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street but let's say 20 minutes for arguements sake. That leaves a spare 10 minutes.

10 minutes to deviate from his work route to a more promising hunting ground/ to find and engage with a prostitute/ to find a spot and kill her/ possibly to check himself over for incriminating bloodstains/ then to continue to work (from a location that could have been further away than on his original route.)

All in 10 minutes!

Surely we have to accept that this makes CL an unlikely killer?

If he was, then he was a killer with a piss-poor instinct for time management

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I think he was opportunistic, but I do not think he was a spur-of-the-moment killer. I think he set out with the hope to find himself a suitable opportunity to kill, that he many times chose not to and that he took his chances when they came.

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.

Yes, I believe he set out to kill, as per the above. I do not think "the hunt" was something he looked for, although he may have liked the feeling of being able to kill without being detected. My belief is that his interest lay in the phase after the kill. I think he sought for women, quite simply, not necessarily because he disliked women (or some women), but instead because they gave him the opportunity to engage in mutilations, mutilations that I believe had an element of ritual in them.

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.

I have no idea how much time he afforded himself. I think he identified the period involving his working trek as the best opportunity he had to procure victims without being found out.
If he used this period of time to kill, we must assume that he had some means to clean up, either at work or at some other premises. These are unknown factors, but we know that he had been working for Pickfords for twenty years, so it may well be that he enjoyed a more secluded envieonment at work than youngsters, or that he arrived earlier than his working comrades and had the opportunity to clean up to whatever extent that was necessary. It may well be that he had gotten new duties before he set out on his killing spree, ant that these duties involved better conditions for a killer. Itīs written in the stars. What I DONīT think he did was to leave home every day at 4.20, cramming a murder in every now and then, and arriving bloodsoaked at a working place where he was exposed to working comrades.

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.

It would certainly be unpredictable hunting grounds, yes. But I feel there is every chance that he took his time, and sought out streets where he knew prostitution was rife.

To simplify my point. CL left home at 3.30 (I know that The Times said 3.40, but as per the documentary Fish I think that you accept 3.30 as likeliest time?) He was due at work at 4.00. I can't recall from Steve's research how long it would take to walk from Doveton Street to Broad Street but let's say 20 minutes for arguements sake. That leaves a spare 10 minutes.

10 minutes to deviate from his work route to a more promising hunting ground/ to find and engage with a prostitute/ to find a spot and kill her/ possibly to check himself over for incriminating bloodstains/ then to continue to work (from a location that could have been further away than on his original route.)

All in 10 minutes!

Surely we have to accept that this makes CL an unlikely killer?

Regards

Herlock

[David Orsam]

Interesting idea David.

Got me wondering if there is an earlier version than Lloyds account.

Yes indeed there is. Evening Post 1st which you transcribed and posted some time back:

"Police constable Neil said that on Friday evening at a quarter to four he was
proceeding down Buck’s-row Whitechapel, from Thomas-street, when he found
the body of the deceased. There was no-one about at the time. He went round
there half an hour previously, and met no one then. It was on the right hand side
of Buck’s-row he found the body lying upon the footway. "

Here we see the use of right hand side; however it refers to the position of the body not that of Neil.
Is it possible that this came to be given in later versions as "I" rather than "It"?

Hi Steve,

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that the Evening Post story is a "version" of the Lloyds story rather than a separate report but I would say that the account of Neil's evidence in the Evening Post is so different to the account in Lloyds/Morning Advertiser/Standard etc. that they must surely have been written by different reporters.

The key to identifying the different reporters in court on that day may be in the address of Edward Walker.

According to Lloyds/Morning Advertiser/Standard etc. he lived at "15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell".

According to the Evening Post reporter, however, he lived in "Maiden-street, Albany-road, Camberwell", no door number being provided.

The Times has his address as being "16 Maidswood-road, Camberwell" from which I think we can conclude that the Times had a separate reporter at the inquest and that there were at least three reporters in the courtroom that day.

I note that the Echo - assuming it's been transcribed correctly - has Walker living at "16, Madswood-street, Albany-road, Camberwell" which is a bit similar to the Times but might indicate the presence of a fourth reporter.

[Joshua Rogan]

Do you mean that he crossed in order to be able to speak to both watchmen? So that if he came in on the northern side, he crossed over to the south side and vice versa?

Yes, that is what I was trying to suggest. Only as a possibility, of course, but it's what I'd do.

[Elamarna]

Have a look at "The defintive story" when it comes to the Nichols murder and the roles of Paul and Lechmere, Steve.

I would not want to be responsible for that....

Yes nothing is perfect and the two are far to close together but at least Paul in on the correct side of the road.

Steve

[caz]

Hi All,

Christer has said that if Cross wasn't actually a psychopath, he would have to concede the man was innocent.

Now this is interesting, because it implies that the man's [suspected] psychopathy is key, and that without it, everything about Cross that made Christer suspicious of him in the first place must have had a perfectly innocent and natural explanation, just as gravity explains his stone falling "to the ground".

What I'd like to know from Christer is if he has any other concessions to make. In short, which, if any of his other suspicions about Cross would be a game changer, if he was wrong?

If Cross was known as Cross whenever dealing with people face to face?

If he told the police his real name and they allowed him to use Cross to spare Mrs Lechmere and all the little Lechmeres from unwanted attention?

If PC Mizen was mistaken and was only told he was "wanted" in Buck's Row, where a woman was lying on the pavement in an uncertain state?

If Paul heard everything that was said to PC Mizen and considered it to be a true picture?

If Christer is wrong about the blood evidence?

If Christer is wrong about anyone's timings, particularly how long Cross was in Buck's Row before he was aware of Paul's approach?

I think these cover the main issues but I'm sure I must have forgotten loads of more minor ones because there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of substance here.

Must dash, as my lovely stepson is coming to stay tonight. Not sure when I'll be back to see Christer's response, if any.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Patrick

It's a bit like the rule applied to Robert Paul in the Documentary is it not.

He enters on the North side of Bucks Row yet Crosses to the South for no reason. And of course he will need to cross back to the North with Cross afterwards to get to see Mizen.

Rules change to suit the need.

Before Christer posts back I am fully aware the Documentary was nothing to do with him as regards control of content and presentation. Not his fault or doing.


Steve

Have a look at "The defintive story" when it comes to the Nichols murder and the roles of Paul and Lechmere, Steve.

I would not want to be responsible for that....

[Fisherman]

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.

Really? To me it seems a lot more as if you are trying to be sarcastic.

If you are arguing that I should vote for how the dearth of serialist should make me go "Lechmere could not have been a killer - it is unusual", you are kind of wasting your time, Patrick...

[Fisherman]

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.

I think he was opportunistic, but I do not think he was a spur-of-the-moment killer. I think he set out with the hope to find himself a suitable opportunity to kill, that he many times chose not to and that he took his chances when they came.

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.

Yes, I believe he set out to kill, as per the above. I do not think "the hunt" was something he looked for, although he may have liked the feeling of being able to kill without being detected. My belief is that his interest lay in the phase after the kill. I think he sought for women, quite simply, not necessarily because he disliked women (or some women), but instead because they gave him the opportunity to engage in mutilations, mutilations that I believe had an element of ritual in them.

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.

I have no idea how much time he afforded himself. I think he identified the period involving his working trek as the best opportunity he had to procure victims without being found out.
If he used this period of time to kill, we must assume that he had some means to clean up, either at work or at some other premises. These are unknown factors, but we know that he had been working for Pickfords for twenty years, so it may well be that he enjoyed a more secluded envieonment at work than youngsters, or that he arrived earlier than his working comrades and had the opportunity to clean up to whatever extent that was necessary. It may well be that he had gotten new duties before he set out on his killing spree, ant that these duties involved better conditions for a killer. Itīs written in the stars. What I DONīT think he did was to leave home every day at 4.20, cramming a murder in every now and then, and arriving bloodsoaked at a working place where he was exposed to working comrades.

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.

It would certainly be unpredictable hunting grounds, yes. But I feel there is every chance that he took his time, and sought out streets where he knew prostitution was rife.

[Fisherman]

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.

Do you mean that he crossed in order to be able to speak to both watchmen? So that if he came in on the northern side, he crossed over to the south side and vice versa?

[Elamarna]

Patrick

It's a bit like the rule applied to Robert Paul in the Documentary is it not.

He enters on the North side of Bucks Row yet Crosses to the South for no reason. And of course he will need to cross back to the North with Cross afterwards to get to see Mizen.

Rules change to suit the need.

Before Christer posts back I am fully aware the Documentary was nothing to do with him as regards control of content and presentation. Not his fault or doing.


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.

[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

[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

[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.