The Nature of Evidence

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Thanks Abby

Regards
Herlock

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Abby, are you saying that if you were walking along a dark and deserted Whitechapel backstreet at 3.40am and a man came out of the darkness and said 'hey mate, come over here and have a look at this,' you'd be a little worried?

Regards
Herlock

[Elamarna]

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

There are those who believe that the murders happened on specific dates for specific reasons. Some of there theories centre around religion or the supernatural which I do not buy into.

There are others who believe the murders happen on significant dates for their own suspect.
I am aware of one at present who believes this, and I withold any judgement on those ideas until such time that full details are provided.

My personal feelings at present are that the killer killed at particular times , that is at the end of the week, this suggests some specific selection but as to why I have no idea.
I don't think he habitually carried a knife, only when he intended to kill. The question I have no answer for at present is did he succeed everytime he intended or did he fail to find a victim on occasions.


Steve

[Henry Flower]

Just one quick query, so that I know whether to return to this thread or ignore it altogether: Pierre, is it your intention to return to your grating and arrogant practice of giving everyone else the lessons on textual and/or historical analysis that you seem to think (despite your own many alarming errors of analysis on these boards) they need from you, or will you content yourself with providing your own observations and questions, some of which are quite useful?

You really ought to have noticed by now: people dont mind disagreement and debate, but they don't care to be spoken down to or lectured by a person who has, as far as we know, no credentials whatsoever.

Please do let me know so I can ignore this thread if need be.

Thanks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are those who believe that the murders happened on specific dates for specific reasons. Some of there theories centre around religion or the supernatural which I do not buy into.

There are others who believe the murders happen on significant dates for their own suspect.
I am aware of one at present who believes this, and I withold any judgement on those ideas until such time that full details are provided.

My personal feelings at present are that the killer killed at particular times , that is at the end of the week, this suggests some specific selection but as to why I have no idea.
I don't think he habitually carried a knife, only when he intended to kill. The question I have no answer for at present is did he succeed everytime he intended or did he fail to find a victim on occasions.


Steve

Thanks for that Steve.

My point is, as you've probably guessed, is that if we accept that the ripper set out to kill, for whatever reason or motivation, as opposed to killing on the spur of the moment then surely the case for CL as the ripper is pretty much dead in the water. I completely understand the need for caution and analysis and I welcome it, but, as things stand, I personally can see no real doubt.
CL gets to Nichols at 3.40ish. Now, if he set out to kill there's no way that he could have expected to find a prostitute on Bucks Row (not an area particularly known for prostitutes I believe) on his way to work. So, if he hadn't been that 'lucky' he'd have had to walk on to more likely areas. Shall we say 10 minutes? That's 3.50. He was trying to get to work for 4! Even at 3.50 he couldn't have been certain to find a victim straight away.
Nothing about this is remotely plausible for me. Now matter how much I try I just cannot see it. I welcome any thoughts on this. As things stand, for me personally, CL the Ripper is close to being a non-starter.

Regards
Herlock

[Abby Normal]

Abby, are you saying that if you were walking along a dark and deserted Whitechapel backstreet at 3.40am and a man came out of the darkness and said 'hey mate, come over here and have a look at this,' you'd be a little worried?

Regards
Herlock

Yes. I would.

[Abby Normal]

There are those who believe that the murders happened on specific dates for specific reasons. Some of there theories centre around religion or the supernatural which I do not buy into.

There are others who believe the murders happen on significant dates for their own suspect.
I am aware of one at present who believes this, and I withold any judgement on those ideas until such time that full details are provided.

My personal feelings at present are that the killer killed at particular times , that is at the end of the week, this suggests some specific selection but as to why I have no idea.
I don't think he habitually carried a knife, only when he intended to kill. The question I have no answer for at present is did he succeed everytime he intended or did he fail to find a victim on occasions.


Steve

I'm sure he failed to find a victim on occasion.

[Patrick S]

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?

Regardsd
Herlock

I think he was a killer of opportunity. He went out looking for prostitutes, hoping to do his thing.

[harry]

Believing as I do,that Cross gave a honest account of events that morning,his first impressions on noticicing the object across the street, was that it was something other than a body.Closer inspection revealed it was a woman.
To me ,his reaction would have been surprise and indecision,and this would have lasted the short time it took for Paul to arrive.
Nothing remotely evasive or suspicious in that.Nothing evasive or suspicious in anything Cross subsequently did or said,and which he testified to.
So any examination of the evidence concerning Cross should begin with a clear understandind of the law at that time,which is,Cross was considered innocent until proven guilty.
What is lacking at present is proof of guilt,which,in my opinion,doesn't exist.

[drstrange169]

Hello Abby,

>>My main point is he just happens to come upon him while hes standing there. in that instant. <<

There was no just happens about it. Presumably Xmere walked down Buck's Row around that time every working day. Ditto Paul. Any delay on Xmere's part makes a meeting inevitable.


>>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.<<

If Paul believed the street to be dangerous then presumably Xmere would have thought so to. It makes perfect sense to see wether Paul was a threat before approaching him.

Not that I'm into TV experts, but even Christer's police expert, told him and Ed that he saw nothing odd in Xmere's interaction with Paul on that count.


>>just at that very moment, in an almost deserted street at that time of night?<<

If there was no murder and Xmere stopped to relive himself against Brown's Stable yard gates, Paul would still have seen Xmere.

It was going to work time.

Nothing odd at all about that at all.

[caz]

Believing as I do,that Cross gave a honest account of events that morning,his first impressions on noticicing the object across the street, was that it was something other than a body.Closer inspection revealed it was a woman.
To me ,his reaction would have been surprise and indecision,and this would have lasted the short time it took for Paul to arrive.
Nothing remotely evasive or suspicious in that.Nothing evasive or suspicious in anything Cross subsequently did or said,and which he testified to.
So any examination of the evidence concerning Cross should begin with a clear understandind of the law at that time,which is,Cross was considered innocent until proven guilty.
What is lacking at present is proof of guilt,which,in my opinion,doesn't exist.

Hi Harry, All,

I have always thought Cross's 'tarpaulin' comment had an innocent ring of truth about it, but this was more instinctive than based on any evidence.

Oddly enough, only last night I began reading The Bus Stop Killer by Geoffrey Wansell, about serial killer Levi Bellfield. On page 5 the following passage hit me like a brick:

Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk [great name!] was walking across the Green, 'taking a breath of air from his studies', when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.

Now, people generally don't expect to see dead bodies lying around when they are out walking. The few who are unlucky enough to have that experience rarely have it more than once in their lifetime. Our brains tend to see what we might expect to see, particularly in the darkness, so a dead body is likely to be seen initially as some other motionless object - a shop dummy for example, if the body is left naked - until we get up close enough and our expectations are shot to pieces.

For me, Cross's 'tarpaulin' is now the strongest evidence for his innocence. How could he have known what an innocent person's brain was likely to make of a dead body, when coming across one unexpectedly for the first and probably only time in their life, unless that's exactly what he had just experienced for himself?

I'm sorry, but the man was innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Bellfield's victim in the above example, Amelie Delagrange: ...was breathing, but only just: she had been hit viciously on the head with a heavy blunt instrument - not once but several times. Tristram did what he could to make her comfortable and ran across the Green to ask the local wine bar to call an ambulance.

Amelie was pronounced dead just after midnight the same night, after being rushed to the local hospital.

Had another student come along while Tristram was trying to make Amelie comfortable, and before he raised the alarm at that wine bar, we'd have had an eerily similar scenario to the one we study here.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

>>My main point is he just happens to come upon him while hes standing there. in that instant. <<

There was no just happens about it. Presumably Xmere walked down Buck's Row around that time every working day. Ditto Paul. Any delay on Xmere's part makes a meeting inevitable.


>>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.<<

If Paul believed the street to be dangerous then presumably Xmere would have thought so to. It makes perfect sense to see wether Paul was a threat before approaching him.

Not that I'm into TV experts, but even Christer's police expert, told him and Ed that he saw nothing odd in Xmere's interaction with Paul on that count.


>>just at that very moment, in an almost deserted street at that time of night?<<

If there was no murder and Xmere stopped to relive himself against Brown's Stable yard gates, Paul would still have seen Xmere.

It was going to work time.

Nothing odd at all about that at all.

To me it is.
And you bring up another point that's odd to me. If it's a common going to work thing with these two, and any minor delay by lech, or conversely any early departure from Paul, and these two should have been accustomed to seeing each other.

[Henry Flower]

Hi Harry, All,

I have always thought Cross's 'tarpaulin' comment had an innocent ring of truth about it, but this was more instinctive than based on any evidence.

Oddly enough, only last night I began reading The Bus Stop Killer by Geoffrey Wansell, about serial killer Levi Bellfield. On page 5 the following passage hit me like a brick:

Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk [great name!] was walking across the Green, 'taking a breath of air from his studies', when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.

Now, people generally don't expect to see dead bodies lying around when they are out walking. The few who are unlucky enough to have that experience rarely have it more than once in their lifetime. Our brains tend to see what we might expect to see, particularly in the darkness, so a dead body is likely to be seen initially as some other motionless object - a shop dummy for example, if the body is left naked - until we get up close enough and our expectations are shot to pieces.

For me, Cross's 'tarpaulin' is now the strongest evidence for his innocence. How could he have known what an innocent person's brain was likely to make of a dead body, when coming across one unexpectedly for the first and probably only time in their life, unless that's exactly what he had just experienced for himself?

I'm sorry, but the man was innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

When I was younger my friends and I used to play in the woods a mile or two from our village. One New Years Day when I was ten I went to the woods to play, and spied a car parked at the foot of the old WWII communications tower hidden in the woods. Supposing that it was a courting couple and I might get to see some boobs I crept up to it very slowly through frost-encrusted bracken. There was a single figure in the driver's seat, slumped against the window, not moving. I spent a good ten minutes or so debating with myself whether or not it was a dead man. It was milk-white and completely motionless. It had a waxy appearance. I was convinced it was a mannequin or wax figure. Only when I finally dared to go right up to the window and observed the details, the eyelashes, stubble etc, did I realise that, yes, this was a human corpse. And it was then that I noticed the hosepipe attached to the exhaust, snaking in through a narrowly opened rear window.

As you say, when one finds a dead body where there is usually no expectation of finding a dead body, the mind processes it as being something else, and takes quite a bit of persuading that it IS in fact a dead body. I was sure it was a wax figure or a mannequin.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Harry, All,

I have always thought Cross's 'tarpaulin' comment had an innocent ring of truth about it, but this was more instinctive than based on any evidence.

Oddly enough, only last night I began reading The Bus Stop Killer by Geoffrey Wansell, about serial killer Levi Bellfield. On page 5 the following passage hit me like a brick:

Shortly after 10.15, with the shadows now deep and dark, student Tristram Beasley-Suffolk [great name!] was walking across the Green, 'taking a breath of air from his studies', when he saw what he thought was some white plastic sheeting lying on the ground on the edge of the cricket square. But as he got closer he realized, to his horror, it was a person.

Now, people generally don't expect to see dead bodies lying around when they are out walking. The few who are unlucky enough to have that experience rarely have it more than once in their lifetime. Our brains tend to see what we might expect to see, particularly in the darkness, so a dead body is likely to be seen initially as some other motionless object - a shop dummy for example, if the body is left naked - until we get up close enough and our expectations are shot to pieces.

For me, Cross's 'tarpaulin' is now the strongest evidence for his innocence. How could he have known what an innocent person's brain was likely to make of a dead body, when coming across one unexpectedly for the first and probably only time in their life, unless that's exactly what he had just experienced for himself?

I'm sorry, but the man was innocent.

Love,

Caz
X

I pretty much agree. Although in those times and circumstances and location, I'm pretty sure they would have seen people sleeping, drunk, maybe injured in public areas.

But you make a good point. Either that or lech was a really really good lier.