Lawende and Long

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think it would qualify as an obstructed view since he didn't identify her, but rather the clothes and he had a pretty unobscured view of those.

Fair point AP.

[JeffHamm]

I don't think it would qualify as an obstructed view since he didn't identify her, but rather the clothes and he had a pretty unobscured view of those.

Hi A.P.,

But, isn't the reason he couldn't identify "her", and only her clothes, because his view of "her" was obstructed by the fact he saw her from the back?

- Jeff

[A P Tomlinson]

Hi A.P.,

But, isn't the reason he couldn't identify "her", and only her clothes, because his view of "her" was obstructed by the fact he saw her from the back?

- Jeff

Yeah I get your point Jeff, but that system that Herlock was quoting, by obstructed view would mean of the person being identified. Lawende never claims he saw her face, so what he DID see, and was able to identify as being what he saw (i.e the clothes) was unobstructed by stuff like bushes, or passing traffic.

Either way it illustrates Herlock's point that despite never seeing the woman's face, Lawende is regarded as being far more reliable than Long, with even modern methodology favouring Long's reliability.

[JeffHamm]

Yeah I get your point Jeff, but that system that Herlock was quoting, by obstructed view would mean of the person being identified. Lawende never claims he saw her face, so what he DID see, and was able to identify as being what he saw (i.e the clothes) was unobstructed by stuff like bushes, or passing traffic.

Either way it illustrates Herlock's point that despite never seeing the woman's face, Lawende is regarded as being far more reliable than Long, with even modern methodology favouring Long's reliability.

Hi AP.

Ok, he would have had an unobstructed view of the clothing, and as you say, that is specifically what he identifies, the clothing not the actual person.

- Jeff