Disregarded evidence

[Lechmere]

Tom
I haven't Given a considered or detailed appreciation of lilley's story. Yet. But clearly it Could be used to bOlster the Charles lechmere case.

[DVV]

David:
" then again, did Mrs Green, that world-famous light sleeper, hear the train ?"

Was she asked about it? It would not have been something out of the ordinary, and therefore she would perhaps not have offered it a thought even if she DID hear it.
Fisherman

Hi Fish.
She said she was sleeping until the constables knocked her front door.
No need to question her about the train or voices, thus.
She heard nothing because she was sleeping.
Conclusion : Mrs Green doesn't contradict Mrs Lilley's account - who must have been "disregarded" for other reasons, good or bad.

[Fisherman]

David:

"She said she was sleeping until the constables knocked her front door.
No need to question her about the train or voices, thus.
She heard nothing because she was sleeping.
Conclusion : Mrs Green doesn't contradict Mrs Lilley's account - who must have been "disregarded" for other reasons, good or bad."

Simplification - where would we be without it?

Mrs Green was a very light sleeper, David. And just as you reason that she does not contradict Lilley since she was fast asleep, I can with an equal amount of simplification say that Green not waking up tells us that Lilley must have been wrong.

Grey, David, is what comes out of mixing black and white.

Grey is a complicated colour.

Not many people like it.

The TRULY interesting thing to note here is that the police may have forgotten to ask Green about the train, yes - but the very apparently forgot to ask Lilley anything at all. She lived right next to New Cottage, and the police omitted to talk to her. Now THAT is strange. Maybe the police were the fast sleepers?

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

hurry

Hello Christer. If Cross were in haste because of the approaching Paul, and wanted to ensure that Polly was dead, why on earth two cuts? The deep one would have sufficed.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

It would! But who says it came first, Lynn? Is it not more reasonable to argue that he was displeased with his first effort and added a second, to make really sure?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish

Mrs Green was a very light sleeper, David.
Fisherman

So when she says she was sleeping, that can't be true.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fish, my apologies then in jumping to conclusions. The way the timing of the train was being discussed, I was left with the impression that some argument was being cooked up and I was at a loss to see how it would fit to Cross. The suggestion of the thread is that Lilley's evidence was disregarded by the police, as though it leads down a different trail than that already suggested by the body of Nichols and the evidence of Cross and Paul, that they spent a few moments over the body.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

David:

"So when she says she was sleeping, that can't be true."

Think again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Tom:

"my apologies then in jumping to conclusions."

No probs, Tom.

"The way the timing of the train was being discussed, I was left with the impression that some argument was being cooked up and I was at a loss to see how it would fit to Cross."

That IS problems - why would I cook up anything at all? Iīm fine with the evidence as it is.

"The suggestion of the thread is that Lilley's evidence was disregarded by the police ..."

It was. What we know, we know courtesy of the papers. The police did not knock on Lilleys door, apparently.

"... as though it leads down a different trail than that already suggested by the body of Nichols and the evidence of Cross and Paul, that they spent a few moments over the body."

Lilley may have heard another couple altogether - if she wandered between sleep and awakeness, drifting in and out if the states, then Lord knows when and what she heard.

But if she genuinely heard moans and whispers, divided by seconds only, then things are looking bleak for our carman.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:
"So when she says she was sleeping, that can't be true."
Think again.
The best,
Fisherman

Done, Fish. Now I think she became Lechmere's mistress (on Sunday evening, most probably) and subsequently changed her version.

[Lechmere]

But I've never met the woman!

[Fisherman]

There you are then, David - wrong again!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Fish, would you tell us the reason of Mrs Green's presence at the inquest, please ?

Was she a friend of the victim ? Did she go to the police with a story ?

No. She lived close to the spot, so the coroner wanted to make clear whether she had heard anything or not.
It turned out that she was sleeping.
Means she didn't heard anything. Nor her daughter, btw.

Should Baxter have asked her : "Did your hear a train, or people talking under your window, while you was sleeping ?"
What a dunderhead he would have been.

But let's say he did (after all, he had just visited Scandinavia), and let's say Mrs Green had answered "Yes" to this already surrealist question.
What would be the value of such "Yes" ?

The same applies to Mrs Long in the Chapman's case.
She said that she saw the man from behind.
But could tell he was over 40, and a foreigner.

With all due respect to Mrs Long, I must say I'm not ready to look for a 45 year old Jewish ripper. Not on my top-list yet.

I rather think she talked too much.

[Fisherman]

David:

"Fish, would you tell us the reason of Mrs Green's presence at the inquest, please ?"

Absolutely! You see, Emma Green lived in New Cottage, and that made her the person closest to the crime. It was thought that she could have heard something, therefore, having been physically close to the murder site. She also professed to being a light sleeper, and therefore, no matter if she had fallen asleep at the relevant hour, she could arguably have been awakened if there were sounds to be heard.

We may actually see that she was asked about this specific thing, since it says in the inquest report that: "Emma Green, who lives in the cottage next to the scene of the murder in Buck's- row, stated that she had heard no unusual sound during the night."

"Should Baxter have asked her : "Did your hear a train, or people talking under your window, while you was sleeping ?""

Oh no - it would have been better if he asked whether Mrs Green was awakened by anything tat night, light sleeper as she was. You donīt hear things when you are asleep - at least you donīt register them the same way as when youīre awake - but you may wake up if there are sounds. I suspect that this was what the inquest was eager to find out about.

"let's say he did (after all, he had just visited Scandinavia)"

Expand, please - I donīt see what you are after.

"let's say Mrs Green had answered "Yes" to this already surrealist question.
What would be the value of such "Yes" ?"

None. The value would only arise when/if she stated that she awoke from it, David.

"The same applies to Mrs Long in the Chapman's case."

She slept too...?

"She said that she saw the man from behind.
But could tell he was over 40, and a foreigner."

No, David, she could not. She got the IMPRESSION that this was so, and that is not a strange thing at all. The texture of the skin (she noticed that the man was dark, and that would not allude to the hair but to the skin) will give away if you are not a young person, and the posture, the hands - many things may SUGGEST a higher age, and that is all Long is saying. Here you are:

"I did not see the man's face, but I noticed that he was dark. He was wearing a brown low-crowned felt hat. I think he had on a dark coat, though I am not certain. By the look of him he seemed to me a man over forty years of age."

He SEEMED a man over forty years, nothing else. The same goes for the foreign descent - he was dark, remember, and dark coloration in skin and hair would suggest a foreigner.

"I rather think she talked too much."

Not at all - she would have been obliged to divulge all her impressions, David. This was not petty theft, it was a high-profile murder case, and the police were eager to get to know everything there was to know. It was quite, quite probably the work of a killer that had struck before, and it was the first time they had a suspect (or so they thought, woefully forgetting about Lechmere). How could they NOT have asked, and how could Long NOT have given all the information she had, including things about which she could not be a hundred per cent sure?

Do you think the police would have been better served by her withholding that they were probably looking for a dark man in his forties or so, with a probable foreign descent?

I think not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

DVV
If you don't mind me saying you are starting to suffer from adversarial contradiction syndrome - where you are compelled to tie yourself in knots opposing everything said by those you are against.