What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

"so far you have only stated belief"

I agree. It's basically reasonable fiction.But it's still is fiction.
I'm siding with the majority of witnesses who report dead/murdered
people in good faith.

Can I join that club? I also think that the absolute majority who report dead or murdered people do so in good faith.

Then again, I equally agree with the police, who recommend to take a long, hard look at anybody who is found alone at a murder scene with a freshly slain body.

One can do both. And after that, it is what the person found on the murder scene says or does that governs how I judge them. If they serve up a credible story and there are no anomalies involved, I tend to believe them.

However, if they hide their names from me and get into discussions with the police, where they totally disagree them on numerous matters when it comes to the behaviour they represented at the time, I sort them into the probably rotten egg basket.

It is that simple, really.

[Varqm]

In the ideal world all witnesses are behaved and accurate.

[Fisherman]

In the ideal world all witnesses are behaved and accurate.

In the ideal world no witnesses are needed, Varqm...

[caz]

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

There you go, Harry - once again you are wrong.

So the evidence against Lechmere is - at best - at the other extreme, meaning the weakest form.

Good of you to admit as much, Christer (assuming that's what you just did), although I would go even further and submit that the evidence is not consistent with an assertion of guilt, in that Lechmere came forward to identify himself as the man Paul claimed was at the scene before him. Paul was the only other person on the planet who could testify to another man being there when he arrived, and he had supposedly already lied about their respective roles.

Had the medical men been effectively able to rule out anyone else killing Nichols in the time available, do you still imagine Lechmere would have ventured forward as a result of Paul's article? Or did he not care what the authorities could have established behind the scenes about the earliest possible time of death?

Love,

Caz
X

[Clark]

We are discussing whether a person found close to a freshly killed murder victim is more likely to be her killer than somebody not found close to the same murder victim. Nothing else.

Which, of course, would imply that a fairly large percentage of murderers are found standing over their victims. Other than possibly domestic violence situations and cases where the crime is committed in front of witnesses (neither of which would apply here), have you found any statistical evidence to bolster this contention?

Since your case apparently depends upon this proposition, you might want to check the stats.

[Fisherman]

caz: So the evidence against Lechmere is - at best - at the other extreme, meaning the weakest form.

That is both right and wrong, Caz. Maybe you don´t understand how it works? I will explain!
You see, we can divide it up in two categories:
1. Evidence that is direct proof
2.Evidence that is circumstantial

I was under the impression that you were aware that the case has not yet been solved? It would have been, if the evidence provided out here had belonged to category 1.

So what evidence there is, is circumstantial. Or, as you rejoice in calling it: the weakest form. I can add another name to heighten your pleasure: Inconclusive evidence.

However, it is not the case - as you seem to think - that there may be no evidence at all. It is there, and there is a lot of it.

Good of you to admit as much, Christer (assuming that's what you just did), although I would go even further and submit that the evidence is not consistent with an assertion of guilt, in that Lechmere came forward to identify himself as the man Paul claimed was at the scene before him. Paul was the only other person on the planet who could testify to another man being there when he arrived, and he had supposedly already lied about their respective roles.

You need to read the quotation I posted earlier again. Evidence is anything supplied in support of an accusation. If I had supported the accusation against Lechmere with an idea that the name Lechmere sounds sinister, that would actually be evidence - but worthless evidence, since it can easily be discarded. Blood evidence, lies and such matters will not go away as easily - in spite of your valiant efforts.

Had the medical men been effectively able to rule out anyone else killing Nichols in the time available, do you still imagine Lechmere would have ventured forward as a result of Paul's article?

That is rather an academic question, and as such inapplicable to the issue at hand. If it had been applicable, I would have answered that if the evidence had ruled out any other killer than Lechmere back in 1888, and if Lechmere had known this, he would be a complete idiot to come forward.
But you need to explain to me what difference that makes in the matter we are debating. Do you think that it somehow negates that a Lechmere who never had that information could have come forward? Is that how you reason? Pray, tell me!

Or did he not care what the authorities could have established behind the scenes about the earliest possible time of death?

Oh dear - you DO think that you have a point here!! Amazing! I am anything but sure that he was aware of the contemporary insights into bleeding times and coagulation times, but since a shitload of people out here even today argue that these matters are of absolutely no consequence, you may want to invest as little enthusiasm as possible in this line of reasoning, Caz... Not least since staying away from the police and inquest could have made him the prime suspect - and THAT much I think he was able to suss out.
Gesundheit!

[caz]

Backtracking a bit…

Mizen must have written a report about the errand and handed it in to his superiors. In that report, if he had not been lied to, he must have written that he was guided to Bucks Row by a carman in company with a colleague.

So why is it that the police told all and sundry that PC Neil was the finder of the body, and even put him on the stand to testify about that?

And why did not Mizen tell his superiors that Neil was wrong? He would have been very much aware of this, unless he had been lied to. If that applies, he would have thought that Neil was truthful when claining to be the finder.

Nobody has - so far managed to answer these questions intelligibly. Here´s your chance, Clark.

Note also that Cross said at the inquest that Paul had not left him until after he had talked to Mizen...

Good point, Clark.

In addition, Paul stated at the inquest that 'they' had met Mizen and told him 'what they had seen'. He couldn't very well continue with his false newspaper claim to have raised the alarm himself, as Cross had already stated that they both spoke to Mizen. The only way Cross could have sneaked in a lie about Mizen being wanted by a PC without Paul knowing would be if Paul had obliged by walking off before Cross, and Cross had said it by way of an afterthought: "Oh and by the way, there is a PC already with the woman, who wants your help".

That makes little sense, and would still not fit with Mizen's claim that when the man he now knew to be named Cross (not Paul) spoke to him, he was accompanied by another man (Paul), and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury St. Nothing about Paul leaving first, followed by the PC revelation from Cross. Had it happened that way, it would surely have struck Mizen as well dodgy when Cross flatly denied saying it.

Again, how would Mizen know that Neil was wrong? Even if Cross hadn't said anything about a PC already being on the scene (and other than Mizen's word, there's no evidence that he did), by the time Mizen arrived at the scene Neil was already there and claiming to have found the body first. What was Mizen to say, "no, I knew about it first because two blokes showed up several minutes ago and told me about it, but I was too busy knocking people up to respond"? Better to accept Neil's word for it that he had discovered the body and go fetch an ambulance, as he was told to do.

Absolutely, Clark. Until Paul's story was published, Mizen had no cause to rock the boat and put a question mark over the sequence and timing of events. PC Neil was conveniently there dealing with the woman when Mizen conveniently turned up to be sent for the ambulance. Mizen could not have put the full details in his report, and nobody appears to have queried what made him leave his beat and go to Buck’s Row, because it was assumed instead that he had responded to the light from Neil’s lantern. Mizen knew this wasn’t true, so if, as Christer claims, he didn’t see fit to mention the two men in his report because he understood Neil to have sent them, when and how did the penny drop with him that this was not true either, and how quickly did he set the record straight? At the inquest he was still claiming that Cross said he was wanted by another PC, but curiously failed to point out that he now knew this to be a blatant lie. Could he still have been totally unaware that Neil hadn’t sent either of the men to get him? Or did it better suit him to reinforce the picture of responding to a fellow officer’s call for assistance, and to say nothing about Cross inventing it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Clark]

Here's where I think you go wrong, Fisherman.

1. Most freshly killed victims left in a public spot when there are people about are discovered by someone rather quickly.

2. The person who claims to have discovered the body may be said to have been near the body.

3. In most cases, the person who claims to have discovered the body is not the killer.

4. Therefore, it is less likely that the person first known to have been near the body after the killing is the killer.

5. Consequently, it is more likely that the killer is someone who was not known to have been near the body at the time it was discovered.

Since this is the exact opposite of your argument for Cross, experience and the empirical evidence from other murders would suggest that you are mistaken.

[caz]

Mizen left his post on the morning in question. That alone would, if I am not much mistaken, have meant that he needed to write a report.

Hi Christer,

But it's crystal clear he didn't put down anything about the true circumstances which led him to leave his post. Neil believed Mizen had seen his lantern and responded with his own light. Mizen knew there was more to it than that, especially if he believed Neil had sent the two men to fetch him. Yet he said nothing about two men coming from the murder scene to alert him. Regardless of what he was told, he should - according to your own argument - have mentioned that fact. Had they not done so, he would never have become involved; never have left his post; never have had to write a report in the first place!

By the way if he only wrote notes as per Harry - what would those notes have been about? And is there anybody, perchance, who speculates that the leaders of the investigation would have taken some scant interest in what Mizen had to say? No?
Were the leaders of the investigation interested in being able to check their people against each other, to be able to establish times, people passing, events that could have a bearing on the case? Probably not, eh...?

Before returning to the real world, that is all I have to say.

But doesn't that tell you that Mizen should have mentioned the two men from the start, but didn't? Had he done so, there'd have been no 'mystery' why anyone had alleged that a PC was called to the body by two men. Mizen was that PC!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I don´t think that Mizen would have beleived that Neil could have been the finder, since he was obviously not there when the carmen were. Ergo, they were first.

Why would he claim to have found the body "first"? There was no competition, Clark. Not as far as Neil knew. So he would not deny anybody else having found it before him by saying that he was first. He would merely have said that he found the body - and Mizen would know that he was wrong.

Aren't you forgetting something, Christer? Mizen wasn't told that the woman was certainly dead; there was no suggestion of murder or suicide; at most the carmen 'thought' she was probably dead. All Mizen saw fit to say at the inquest was that he was told 'a woman had been found' - not a corpse. In short, Neil was the first to find a 'body', as far as Mizen, or Neil, or anyone but the killer could have sworn to.

If there was already a PC in place, why would Lechmere go looking for Mizen in the first place - unless he was asked to?

Indeed. But then why would he have said this to Mizen as an afterthought, as you suggest? Wouldn't Mizen have asked himself why Cross had waited for Paul to be out of earshot before delivering the crucial part of the message, that he was to leave his post on the orders of a fellow officer? You make Mizen come across like a gullible buffoon.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Imagine, if you will, that your best friend is found murdered on the street outside your house. A person passing by notices how a man is standing close to the body of your friend. It is later revealed that your friend would have been killed at approximately the time when the person who was found by him was at the spot, or very close in time to it. Sadly, that person was allowed to leave the murder spot unchecked, and he only resurfaces some time later.

Now, for some odd reason, in this scenario I am proposing to you, you alone have the right to decide about which person should be investigated. And, not very productively, you are only allowed to suggest one such person. If that person cannot be tied to the murder, it is the duty of the police to close the investigation and move on to other errands.

Now, your general take on things is that people who are found alone, standing close to freshly slain victims, are not more likely to be their killers than anybody else living in the neighbourhood where the crime is committed.

So I would be interested to hear how you would reason in a purely theoretical case like this.

Any suggestions? The local butcher? The postman? A toddler? A train driver? Or the man found by the side of your freshly killed best friend? Let me know, please, and motivate your choice as best as you can - who would you direct the police to investigate...?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, Christer, but I'd like to offer a couple of observations relating to the Nichols case.

Firstly, the only person on the planet who knew Lechmere had been close to the victim was Robert Paul. He believed her to be dead but didn't know at that time the cause - that she had been very recently attacked with a knife and murdered. In fact, he claimed in the newspaper that she was so cold she must have been dead for some time, which was about as far from claiming she was ‘freshly slain’ as it was possible to take it. That would have been music to the ears of a killer who had already pulled the wool over the eyes of Paul and Mizen.

Secondly, had Lechmere not come forward, because he was the killer, and had successfully conned his way past witness and policeman, without being identified, suspected, questioned, searched, you name it, Paul would have remained the only person on the planet to claim someone else had come across this cold dead body before he had.

Thirdly, Paul lied in his press interview if it was Lechmere who alerted Mizen and if nothing was said to him about the woman being dead. If and when they tracked Paul down, and if and when Mizen realised it was the other man who had alerted him, Paul would be exposed as the liar, and anything he claimed about who was at the scene first could not have been relied upon as evidence. All Lechmere had to do was sit tight and wait. Even if Paul and Mizen were able and willing to track him down between them, and positively identify him, which is unlikely in the extreme, he had precious little to fear from a lying Paul's totally unsupported word. Mizen had no idea who was first at the scene if not Neil, and Paul’s word couldn’t be trusted.

Lastly, Lechmere came forward to provide the only support for it. He freely admitted he had been the first to see the woman lying there: before Paul, before Neil, before anyone on the planet. What possible incentive did he have to do that, if he killed Nichols and saw that everyone involved was dancing so perfectly to his tune? If it ain’t broke…

So it's not just a case of naturally investigating the person who first 'discovered' a freshly slain victim; it’s also a question of how many killers have – or ever would - come forward to claim to be that person, when the only witness with the very slight potential to place him near the victim doesn't know him from Adam and has just lied in a newspaper account about their respective roles?

Love,

Caz
X

[Clark]

...and nobody appears to have queried what made him (Mizen) leave his beat and go to Buck’s Row, because it was assumed instead that he had responded to the light from Neil’s lantern...

Precisely. Neil testified at the inquest that Mizen was in Baker's Row when he had hailed him with his lantern, so as far as anyone knew, Mizen had not left his post prior to Neil having signaled.

I still find it hard to believe that Mizen would have been asked to file a written report of the incident when all anyone would have expected him to say was "Hailed by Neil, sent to fetch ambulance."

[Fisherman]

Here's where I think you go wrong, Fisherman.

1. Most freshly killed victims left in a public spot when there are people about are discovered by someone rather quickly.

2. The person who claims to have discovered the body may be said to have been near the body.

3. In most cases, the person who claims to have discovered the body is not the killer.

4. Therefore, it is less likely that the person first known to have been near the body after the killing is the killer.

5. Consequently, it is more likely that the killer is someone who was not known to have been near the body at the time it was discovered.

Since this is the exact opposite of your argument for Cross, experience and the empirical evidence from other murders would suggest that you are mistaken.

You are creating a parallel universe here, Clark - I am much impressed!

[Fisherman]

caz:

But it's crystal clear he didn't put down anything about the true circumstances which led him to leave his post.

... which was in all probability due to the fact that he had been lied to. He would have put down what he THOUGHT was the truth: that Neil had summoned him.

But doesn't that tell you that Mizen should have mentioned the two men from the start, but didn't? Had he done so, there'd have been no 'mystery' why anyone had alleged that a PC was called to the body by two men. Mizen was that PC!

Everything would have been easier if Mizen had mentioned the carmen. But I can easily see how they were left unmentioned if Mizen was lied to. If he was told the truth - no way, Caz!

[Clark]

You are creating a parallel universe here, Clark - I am much impressed!

And you are apparently denying life as experienced in the real world. I am somewhat less than impressed.