The Nature of Evidence

[Patrick S]

That's a good point. I've often wondered if Paul's apparrent attack on the police in his interview was occasioned by some redirected sense of guilt at not having done more, once the full facts became known.

To my thinking, Paul's seeming frustration toward the police was perhaps informed by his perception that Mizen's reaction was not - as far as he was concerned - appropriate. However, I think it's also possible that he was echoing an overall sense of anger that was present among many in the area. Anger stirred by media reports critical of the police and their handling of previous, seemingly connected crimes. While “Polly” Nichols is generally considered to have been the first victim of “Jack the Ripper”, there had already been several unsolved crimes that had the police under heightened scrutiny.

On February 28, 1888, 38 year old Annie Millwood was attacked by a man she described as a stranger. She was stabbed with a knife in the “legs and lower torso”. She was admitted to Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary. She recovered and was released on March 21. However, ten days later Millwood collapsed and died. The coroner determined the cause of death as, “'sudden effusion into the pericardium from the rupture of the left pulmonary artery through ulceration.”

On March 28, 1888, Ada Wilson answered a knock at the door of her home. A man used force to enter and demanded money. Wilson refused. She was stabbed twice in the throat. Wilson survived her injuries.

On April 3, 1888, Emma Smith reported that she was attacked by three or four “youths”. She was raped and beaten, and robbed. Her assailants thrust a blunt object into her vagina, tearing her perineum. She was able to return to her lodging house. She was admitted to the London Hospital where she died of her injuries for days later.

On August 7, 1888, Martha Tabram was found murdered in the George Yard Buildings. She had been stabbed thirty-nine times, primarily about the abdomen, breasts, and pelvic area.

[John G]

Good point, John, backed up by Robert Paul himself of course!

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, Caz. It's obvious from Paul's evidence that when Cross walked towards him he wasn't thinking that the stranger's intent was innocent, i.e. to introduce himself to a fellow commuter or to ask directions. More likely, he was in fear of his life!

[Joshua Rogan]

One wonders how they must have felt when they learned about all the gory details. Shocked but relieved probably.

That's a good point. I've often wondered if Paul's apparrent attack on the police in his interview was occasioned by some redirected sense of guilt at not having done more, once the full facts became known.

[Patrick S]

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.

Abby - So you now agree a "raising of the alarm" would have been premature in that the figure - after Cross had discerned it was a woman and not a tarpaulin, etc. - could very well have been "sleeping, drunk, maybe injured"? Thus, you now agree that his approaching the first person to happen along was appropriate (as opposed to yelling, "Murder!", hammering on doors, all that)?

[Abby Normal]

Not nesicarilly Abby.

We don't know what time Paul normally left home or indeed his start time at work. Without that we have no idea how close their daily routes were to each other

It's perfectly possible that the never saw each other, at least not so they would recognise each other. It could be the most they ever saw of each other was a dark shape in the distance.

Steve

hi el
well they came upon each other within seconds of lech hesitating so....

[Abby Normal]

Good point, John, backed up by Robert Paul himself of course!

Love,

Caz
X

Hi john and caz
but I think for those very reasons they would also be perceptive of other innocuous walkers to work, especially in dangerous conditions, perhaps another ally or at least who wouldn't be a threat.

I used to work as a bouncer at a bar in a city and because of lack of parking we had to park and walk about 15 minutes away. leaving at 2:30 in the morning, I quickly became aware of the comings and goings of the few people I saw and the regular walkers who were doing the same things as me.

[caz]

Yes, I thought that too, Abby. At the very least I think, on occasion, they would have been in close proximity to one another. However, I also sense that this was the sort of neighbourhood where commuters would have kept themselves to themselves, and would therefore have been wary of strangers, who they would have instinctively sought to avoid or to make eye contact with.

Good point, John, backed up by Robert Paul himself of course!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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.

Hi Henry,

Many thanks for sharing what must have been a very chilling and upsetting experience for you.

Fortunately for Cross and Paul, neither actually saw the horrific injuries inflicted on Nichols. [Even if Cross had inflicted them he couldn't have seen any or he'd never have let Paul anywhere near the woman.] One wonders how they must have felt when they learned about all the gory details. Shocked but relieved probably.

What a shame Cross is not allowed to rest in peace.

Love,

Caz
X

[John G]

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.

Yes, I thought that too, Abby. At the very least I think, on occasion, they would have been in close proximity to one another. However, I also sense that this was the sort of neighbourhood where commuters would have kept themselves to themselves, and would therefore have been wary of strangers, who they would have instinctively sought to avoid or to make eye contact with.

[caz]

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.

Hi Abby,

But the fact remains that Cross and Paul were both on their way to work, and there was nothing odd about that, nor about the time each one passed along Buck's Row.

If they had walked to work each day in opposite directions you'd have had more of a point, but walking in the same direction one would only have seen the back of the other in normal circumstances [even if one walked faster and overtook], and only then if they were mere seconds apart. More than half a minute between them and they may not have seen each other at all, unless - as was likely the case here - something caused the first man to stop en route, allowing the second man to catch up. If you only ever saw the back of someone in the dark, wearing dark clothing, walking ahead of you, would you necessarily recognise him as the same person if you suddenly met him face to face under what were unusual circumstances?

Love,

Caz
X

[Elamarna]

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.

Not nesicarilly Abby.

We don't know what time Paul normally left home or indeed his start time at work. Without that we have no idea how close their daily routes were to each other

It's perfectly possible that the never saw each other, at least not so they would recognise each other. It could be the most they ever saw of each other was a dark shape in the distance.

Steve

[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.

[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]

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.

[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