The Nature of Evidence

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry,

It sometimes gets forgotten, in all the noise, that if Cross had not generously identified himself as the man who discovered Nichols, it is highly doubtful he would ever have been identified at all and we would not now know a blessed thing about him, beyond what Paul and PC Mizen were able to recall, from seeing him in the darkness and hearing his voice.

We wouldn't know the name Lechmere or Cross; we wouldn't know where he lived or worked. At most he would be the anonymous man who had noticed a woman lying motionless in the street; had sought the assistance of the next person to come that way; and had gone with him to alert a policeman. Not showing up at the inquest may have resulted in questions being asked of Paul and PC Mizen along the lines of: "How did the finder of the woman strike you from when he first spoke to when you parted company?", and since there is not the slightest hint anywhere that either man came away that morning with an impression of Cross as anyone other than a decent man who was trying to do the right thing despite having to get to work on time, that impression would have been reflected in their responses.

"Oh, now you mention it, he did look a bit shifty"?

"Oh God, his eyes, I'll never forget that evil stare"?

Not a chance.

Mr Nobody would have been forgotten in the blink of an eye - and rightly so if Paul and Mizen were being honest about their impressions.

Love,

Caz
X

Thatīs as clueless as it gets. People who are found alone with murder victims at the approximate times of their deaths, and who subsequently dissapear from the radar, will inevitably be the focus of any investigation worth itīs salt, especially if no other suspect surfaces.

Lechmere apparently defused this by coming forward by himself. It hsould be noted, though, that he seemingly did not come forward until after the Paul interview.

Thought youīd value a reality check, Caz.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"They know that I was found standing still in the middle of the street, and they will want a reason for why I did not walk up to the woman to help her. Now, how can I solve that problem, what reason can I offer for why I stopped instead of proceeding to help her?"

Because when he got closer to the body he heard footsteps around 40 yards away and halted, possibly at first thinking that it might be a Constable who could could deal with the situation. I would also suggest that quite a few people would be hesitant to get too close to a possible corpse. It's called human nature.
He stopped in the first place because of the reason he stated; he thought that it was a tarpaulin.

If there's no evidence that someone is lying we should assume that they're telling the truth. That's what we do in life. You can make anything fit if you just keep saying 'he was lying,' to every statement or occurrence.

No mystery to see here chaps. Please move along

Herlock the Naysayer

[Fisherman]

nope. not at all. the mysterious man would be suspect number one. no doubt about it.

You beat me to it by a minute, Abby! And you are of course correct.

Thatīs two whoppers on Cazīs account now. The idea that Lechmere could not have lied about the tarpaulin is perhaps even worse, I dunno...

[Fisherman]

Herlock Sholmes: Because when he got closer to the body he heard footsteps around 40 yards away and halted, possibly at first thinking that it might be a Constable who could could deal with the situation. I would also suggest that quite a few people would be hesitant to get too close to a possible corpse. It's called human nature.
He stopped in the first place because of the reason he stated; he thought that it was a tarpaulin.

He actually came from the south side of the street after having killed Nichols, and he never entertained any idea about a tarpaulin at all. It was just part of the ruse, and it is typical that he did not mention it to Paul ("I first thought it was a tarpaulin, mate"), because he only made it up later.

If there's no evidence that someone is lying we should assume that they're telling the truth. That's what we do in life. You can make anything fit if you just keep saying 'he was lying,' to every statement or occurrence.

And when there is evidence that someone is lying, we should look with scepticism on that persons innocence. Like when such a person produces the wrong name, for example. Or when he is pointed out by a PC as having served a lie. That is the kind of evidence you mean, I take it?

No mystery to see here chaps. Please move along

Well, itīs obvious that you bought Lechmeres lies, no questions asked. No questioning to see here chaps. Please move along.

Gullible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Once more, what would you have him do to suspect him? Roll his eyes and dance around, shouting "I killed the mare!"?
The whole idea of bluffing things out is to try and give ANOTHER picture than the real one, Herlock. That is what the concept is like, that is why we bluff - we present ONE thing, while ANOTHER thing is the correct scenario.

I wouldn't expect anything as we can't know how any individual would react in that situation. But he might, as he had very little time to 'prepare,' act a little nervously, avoid eye contact...Who knows? No one was suspicious of him though. And of course we know that he had no need to bluff.

However! Saying that there is another PC in place is not consistent with the normal actions of a bloke finding a body on his way to work. Not using his real name is not consistent with a bloke finding a body on his way to work. Und so weiter.

He said that he didn't say that there was a policeman in place unless you assume that the saintly Mizen couldn't conceivably have lied or misheard. When asked if he'd mentioned a policeman he said 'no, because I didn't see a policeman in Bucks Row.' If any statement sounds honest this is it. Mizen would have been mistaken not to at least take CL's and Paul's details let alone detaining them but he didn't. He messed up and covered his a**e by saying that he was only told that she was drunk. If CL lied he was risking Paul revealing it.

But all of this is futile to point out to you, since you have done what so many accuse me of - closed your mind, and decided what to believe. Thankfully, a barrister and a murder squad leader did not do that, but instead reviewed the evidence and came up with the suggestion that Lechmere is a good bid for the killers role, on account of what you fail to see - a suspicious behaviour.

One barrister and one murder squad leader. Strangely though when I asked what you thought that other experts might think you said that I was being childish!! And you say that I'm closed minded. There was no suspicious behaviour except for the suspicious behaviour of someone who sees suspicion everywhere. I wonder why?

Herlock the Naysayer

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock Sholmes: Because when he got closer to the body he heard footsteps around 40 yards away and halted, possibly at first thinking that it might be a Constable who could could deal with the situation. I would also suggest that quite a few people would be hesitant to get too close to a possible corpse. It's called human nature.
He stopped in the first place because of the reason he stated; he thought that it was a tarpaulin.

He actually came from the south side of the street after having killed Nichols, and he never entertained any idea about a tarpaulin at all. It was just part of the ruse, and it is typical that he did not mention it to Paul ("I first thought it was a tarpaulin, mate"), because he only made it up later.

If there's no evidence that someone is lying we should assume that they're telling the truth. That's what we do in life. You can make anything fit if you just keep saying 'he was lying,' to every statement or occurrence.

And when there is evidence that someone is lying, we should look with scepticism on that persons innocence. Like when such a person produces the wrong name, for example. Or when he is pointed out by a PC as having served a lie. That is the kind of evidence you mean, I take it?

No mystery to see here chaps. Please move along

Well, itīs obvious that you bought Lechmeres lies, no questions asked. No questioning to see here chaps. Please move along.

Gullible.

Transparent, childish, obvious nonsense!

[Fisherman]

Transparent, childish, obvious nonsense!

You are way too hard on yourself. We all make the odd post that is not up to scratch.

[Elamarna]

Thatīs as clueless as it gets. People who are found alone with murder victims at the approximate times of their deaths, and who subsequently dissapear from the radar, will inevitably be the focus of any investigation worth itīs salt, especially if no other suspect surfaces.

Lechmere apparently defused this by coming forward by himself. It hsould be noted, though, that he seemingly did not come forward until after the Paul interview.

Thought youīd value a reality check, Caz.

Of course Fish we really have nothing to say when he approached the authorities do we?

We know when he appeared at the inquest, however as far as I am aware there are no records of when he first made contact. Yes it may have been after the Lloyds article but then again it could have been before,
Of course you know that by the use of "seemingly".



Steve

[Elamarna]

Herlock Sholmes: Because when he got closer to the body he heard footsteps around 40 yards away and halted, possibly at first thinking that it might be a Constable who could could deal with the situation. I would also suggest that quite a few people would be hesitant to get too close to a possible corpse. It's called human nature.
He stopped in the first place because of the reason he stated; he thought that it was a tarpaulin.

He actually came from the south side of the street after having killed Nichols, and he never entertained any idea about a tarpaulin at all. It was just part of the ruse, and it is typical that he did not mention it to Paul ("I first thought it was a tarpaulin, mate"), because he only made it up later.

That's is what upsets me.

You state he came from the south side after having killed Nichols.

When it should read "if he killed Nichols, he came from the Southside." Or something like that.

Nitpicking you may say but it's about the impression we create to others by what we write.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Of course Fish we really have nothing to say when he approached the authorities do we?

Yes, we actually do have a few bits and bobs that allow us to establish a few things. we know that on the evening of the 2:nd, Neil was still claiming to be the finder of the body, and that was on Sunday, the day before Mondays inquest day. So at that stage, Lechmere had quite apparently not made his entrance.
If you are saying that we do not have the exact time he arrived at the cop shop, you are correct, of course.

We know when he appeared at the inquest, however as far as I am aware there are no records of when he first made contact. Yes it may have been after the Lloyds article but then again it could have been before,
Of course you know that by the use of "seemingly".

As I say, Lechmere blew Neils story out of the water, and that story was very much afloat on the evening of the 2:nd.
You have a propensity at times to underrate how things can be read from surrounding circumstaces, but I hope you wonīt allow that to lead you wrong on this matter.
The only logical removes of time that Lechmere can have arrived is on Sunday evening or on Monday, possibly in direct connection with the inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman,

You assert that CL lied about the tarpaulin, for which there's not a smidgeon of evidence.

You also say that it was in some way suspicious that he didn't mention it to Paul. How? It was totally irrelevant to Paul. Why should he need to tell him?

Herlock the Naysayer

[Fisherman]

That's is what upsets me.

You state he came from the south side after having killed Nichols.

When it should read "if he killed Nichols, he came from the Southside." Or something like that.

Nitpicking you may say but it's about the impression we create to others by what we write.


Steve

I was responding to Herlock Sholmes who wrote that we KNOW that Lechmere had no need to bluff. Interestingly, every time I do something like this to comment on how a poster from the other side has stated as a fact what cannot be stated as a fact, I am the one who is attacked.

Why is that, Steve? Any ideas? Guesses? No?

[Fisherman]

While Steve tries to understand the problem I just described to him, I will take the opportunity too say that I am leaving for a weeks time now, to do better things altogether than to quibble over uninteresting things.

Bye for now.

[John G]

Read Wolf Vanderlindens essay. Among other things, it points out how Phillips checked for rigor, and that had only just begun to set in. Normally, it takes wround two hours for this to commence.

But hey - who wants anything normal around here?

Once again, read Vanderlindens essay.

But rigor mortis is an even less reliable method. Moreover, in the case of violent death, such as cut throat, it's onset can be fast and of short duration.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was responding to Herlock Sholmes who wrote that we KNOW that Lechmere had no need to bluff. Interestingly, every time I do something like this to comment on how a poster from the other side has stated as a fact what cannot be stated as a fact, I am the one who is attacked.

Why is that, Steve? Any ideas? Guesses? No?

I don't need to guess

You've just stated that CL lied about the tarpaulin. With no evidence! Please TRY and listen to yourself Fish.

Maybe you think in Swedish but write in English and things get lost in translation?

Herlock the Naysayer