Evidence of innocence

[drstrange169]

When you follow the evidence we have, the pieces fit, more or less, together. It's only when you start deviating from the evidence that things fall apart.

[MrBarnett]

Lechmerians aren't going to like this because I'm using the known evidence.

We know Neil saw the body from a MINIMUM distance of 25 feet away. Neil doesn't say where he was when he saw the body, so he could have been even further away.

Purkiss said he "could see all there was to see" from his window.

He could see all there was to see from the window: ‘there were two or three men bedsides the constables’.

Nothing else? Not even a tarpaulin?

Perhaps he meant, ‘I saw all I could see from the window.’

[MrBarnett]

He could see all there was to see from the window: ‘there were two or three men bedsides the constables’.

Nothing else? Not even a tarpaulin?

Perhaps he meant, ‘I saw all I could see from the window.’

Essentially what he’s saying is that his window overlooked the murder site. How clearly he could see the body isn’t mentioned.

As you say, Dusty, ‘It's only when you start deviating from the evidence that things fall apart’.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Trevor,



I tend to agree with you as I view posing as a deliberate act of positioning beyond actions necessary to commit the offense. Meaning, if the offender has to move one leg off to the side (i.e. Eddowes) in order to gain access to the abdomen to perform the mutilations, then that's not something I would call posing. If, however, the offender positioned her leg after the mutilations to satisfy some desire, then that would be posing. It would even be posing if he positioned the leg first because he wanted her in that position for some psychological reason (satisfying to him; desire to shock when the body was found, etc), that would be posing too, in my view. Basically, posing, to me, requires the positioning not to be "functional" to the committing of the offense. From your post, it appears you use that definition as well.

I think it may be the case that some define posing as a shocking position, even if that position arises for solely functional reasons, although I could be wrong on that. But if so, I could see how Eddowes would meet that second definition of "posed" while not meeting the first definition.

- Jeff

- Jeff

Hi Jeff , Would not the body parts of Eddowes and Kelly being placed in certain positions around their bodies be considered as ''Posing'' ?.

I personally see a mountain of evidence of posing if that is the case .

[drstrange169]

"When the police called him he opened the landing window. He could see the deceased..."

Correct, as I say, ‘It's only when you start deviating from the evidence that things fall apart’.



Unlike ...

>> A lot closer than his approximate location as proposed by Dusty with the help of Richard’s simulation.<<

Not my proposal, the spot the named in the inquest by the newspaper, but known evidence is always an optional extra with Lechmerians.

It's great to know al these people know exactly what the lighting conditions were in Buck's Row that night. Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to exactly how you know?



>> ‘Where the woman was’.<<

When she was dead so long it was before Cross left home, you mean? And since Paul left Cross with the body and found Mizen by himself, how come Neil didn't find Cross still with the body or at least walking up the street?

Yeah, well thought out comments Gary.

[drstrange169]

Silly comments aside, what is interesting is Mrs Green's comment.



So, it seems that from the south side of the road the body was hard to see, but from the north side, at least some of it, was quite distinquishable.

Presumably, something, perhaps Mrs Nichols bare legs, was reflecting light that could be seen from the far side, but not the near side. This might explain why once people were close to the body visibility was difficult.

Hopefully this shows up.

The kerb on the right of the picture is only visible because of the light reflecting off it. However for someone standing on that path the kerb would not be so visible.

[GBinOz]

>> ... he walked on to a point where he could identify the shape as a woman - about three metres<<

Yet Neil had no trouble seeing from, at least, 8 metres and Purkis slightly further.

Hi Dusty,

I can't find a reference to the distance Neil was from the body when he determined that it was a woman. Can you point me to that source please?

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Fishy,

Hi Jeff , Would not the body parts of Eddowes and Kelly being placed in certain positions around their bodies be considered as ''Posing'' ?.

I personally see a mountain of evidence of posing if that is the case .

I think there are aspects of posing in the Kelly case, the position of her left arm in particular looks deliberately placed, and when that is combined with her head turned towards the entrance (while that could be situational), it creates a posture that does look contrived, hence posed.

The placement of the internal organs in the Eddowes' case could reflect placing things out of the way; they had to go somewhere after all, so I'm not so sure in that case. Could be it was deliberate, but it also could just be situational. However, again, in the Kelly case, with some placed under her head (I believe that is how it is described? I don't have my notes in front of me), cannot be explained so easily, so again, there appears to be a deliberate arrangement of the body over and above performing the mutilations reflecting an aspect of posing.

Some descriptions of Annie Chapman's items are that they appeared deliberately arranged, and that could suggest some sort of posing, though more of the scene than the body itself. The idea of doing something "more" to arrange the scene for those who find the body could be something that was developing as an idea, starting at least with the Chapman crime, but I would agree with you that it is being shown in the Kelly scene. Of course, it may be most apparent in the scene he had the most time available, so it's hard to suggest when this idea may have first occurred to him.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

Hello George,

He doesn't give one.

We know he saw it from across the road, which was 25 foot wide, so we know 25 foot is the minimum distance that he could have seen her. How much further from that distance he saw the body is an unknown, which is why I'm saying a minimum distance only.

Purkiss, being on a slight angle from the murder site and higher up would be slightly further away.

[drstrange169]

1. Light from the brewery and possibly a street lamp, spilling into the end of Buck's Row.
2. Ambient light and possibly actual lights from the Brown and Eagle's wool warehouse spilling into Buck's Row.
3. Possible position of the lamp post.
4. Ambient light and possible light from the station spilling into Buck's Row.
5. Ambient light.
6. Alternative site of the lamp post.
7. The darkest area in Buck's Row.

[MrBarnett]

1. Light from the brewery and possibly a street lamp, spilling into the end of Buck's Row.
2. Ambient light and possibly actual lights from the Brown and Eagle's wool warehouse spilling into Buck's Row.
3. Possible position of the lamp post.
4. Ambient light and possible light from the station spilling into Buck's Row.
5. Ambient light.
6. Alternative site of the lamp post.
7. The darkest area in Buck's Row.

Possibly,
Possibly,
Possible,
Possible,
Alernative…

[JeffHamm]

Hi Dusty,

1. Light from the brewery and possibly a street lamp, spilling into the end of Buck's Row.
2. Ambient light and possibly actual lights from the Brown and Eagle's wool warehouse spilling into Buck's Row.
3. Possible position of the lamp post.
4. Ambient light and possible light from the station spilling into Buck's Row.
5. Ambient light.
6. Alternative site of the lamp post.
7. The darkest area in Buck's Row.

Interesting. The area you've indicated as the darkest area looks to be roughly a region where Paul would have been when Cross/Lechmere stops after noticing it is a woman and not a tarpaulin. In his testimony I believe some reports indicates he heard Paul, and turned. That leaves open the possibility that he might not have seen Paul immediately, and his 40 yard estimation is based upon Paul's first coming into view, implying the possibility that Paul was further behind him. The difference wouldn't be much, of course, but all the same it's something to consider.

In addition, with the position of the lamps at the end of the street it is difficult to say how those light sources would interfere with seeing someone in the distance. It could be they act to silhouette the person, increasing their visibility, or it could be they served to effectively blind the viewer of those in darker areas. Certainly if the light source was between them it would interfere, provided the person being viewed isn't in the illuminated area, as was likely with PC Harvey in the Eddowes case, but with the two people on the same side and the light source in the distance that makes it more difficult to determine, which is unfortunate for us trying to understand the visibility. Sigh.

Anyway, that's all very useful information nonetheless. I do have one question about the map. What do the blue circles represent? There's one just above the red 1 where one lamp post is indicated, but the other two that I see (i.e. between the red 2 & 7, and one on Winthrop in a similar position) are not labelled as lamps so I presume they are something else?

- Jeff

[MrBarnett]

Silly comments aside, what is interesting is Mrs Green's comment.



So, it seems that from the south side of the road the body was hard to see, but from the north side, at least some of it, was quite distinquishable.

Presumably, something, perhaps Mrs Nichols bare legs, was reflecting light that could be seen from the far side, but not the near side. This might explain why once people were close to the body visibility was difficult.

Hopefully this shows up.

The kerb on the right of the picture is only visible because of the light reflecting off it. However for someone standing on that path the kerb would not be so visible.

“She saw the body of deceased lying on the ground, but it was still too dark to clearly distinguish what had happened.”

“He could see the deceased…”

How can you tell that Purkiss could see the body more clearly than Mrs Green? Is there a source you are keeping back, Dusty?

[MrBarnett]

Hi Dusty,



Interesting. The area you've indicated as the darkest area looks to be roughly a region where Paul would have been when Cross/Lechmere stops after noticing it is a woman and not a tarpaulin. In his testimony I believe some reports indicates he heard Paul, and turned. That leaves open the possibility that he might not have seen Paul immediately, and his 40 yard estimation is based upon Paul's first coming into view, implying the possibility that Paul was further behind him. The difference wouldn't be much, of course, but all the same it's something to consider.

In addition, with the position of the lamps at the end of the street it is difficult to say how those light sources would interfere with seeing someone in the distance. It could be they act to silhouette the person, increasing their visibility, or it could be they served to effectively blind the viewer of those in darker areas. Certainly if the light source was between them it would interfere, provided the person being viewed isn't in the illuminated area, as was likely with PC Harvey in the Eddowes case, but with the two people on the same side and the light source in the distance that makes it more difficult to determine, which is unfortunate for us trying to understand the visibility. Sigh.

Anyway, that's all very useful information nonetheless. I do have one question about the map. What do the blue circles represent? There's one just above the red 1 where one lamp post is indicated, but the other two that I see (i.e. between the red 2 & 7, and one on Winthrop in a similar position) are not labelled as lamps so I presume they are something else?

- Jeff

The blue circles are fire hydrants, Jeff.

[MrBarnett]

By the time Purkiss and Green gave evidence, they knew there had been a body outside the stable yard. So their claim to have seen the deceased/the body tells us little about how clearly they could see it at the time. It is very ‘unsafe’ to use the varying wordings of the press reports to determine the lighting conditions on the street.

Were there any police lamps in use when the neighbours looked out of their windows? There’s another ‘possible’ for you, Dusty.