What was Kosminski is now Lechmere: how relevant is Scobie?

[Fisherman]

There is no fabrication on my part, I did have a telephone conversation with Scobie within a day or so of the first showing of the program and what I have written is a true account of the conversation we had. He clearly had been misled by what he was provided with and the way questions were put to him for him to give the statements he made on screen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You now say that you find it clear that Scobie was misled. In your former post, you wrote ”Scobie was misled … he told me that himself”.

If Scobie had claimed to have been misled, it would be of great importance. But he never did, did he? That was something that was led on in your post, and it was not true, was it?

You consider it misleading to provide a barrister with accusatory material and ask him to assess it. But it is nothing of the sort, least of all since it is spelled out extremely clearly in the documentary that this was the exact thing that was done. The reason for it should be obvious - to provide Scobie with all the material that has been written in the matter would be to subject him to years of reading, and it would never be a realistic thing to do.

It also applies that there is absolutely nothing withheld that in any way could clear Charles Lechmere; no alibi, no evidence, no nothing, unless we accept the bid of some posters that a killer is physically unable to stay put on a murder site and bluff it out. Plus, of course, THAT part was something that Scobie was always aware of. All that you, and anybody else who do not like the case made for Lechmere, could do would be to say that you think he did not do it. And I fail to see that making any sort of lasting impression on Scobie - he assessed the case facts, not the hoo-hah they bring out from some.

The suggestion that Scobie was in any way misled is in itself therefore the only misleading there is. And it is an understandable one, since if he was not misled, we have a very experienced barrister telling us that the case against Lechmere would warrant a modern day trial. Furthermore, it would according to said barrister be a trial that suggested guilt on the carmans behalf, and a trial at which there would be a jury that would not like the carman.

So there we are - just as Paul Begg stated at the time, there is nothing at all wrong or misleading about the view of James Scobie - but there is something VERY wrong and VERY misleading about claiming - as you demonstrably did - that James Scobie himself said to you that he had been misled.

That is all there is to it.

[Fisherman]

In that case, why did Scobie state it as a fact that Lechmere had a pattern of offending?


The fact that there was a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of (sic) which he is linked - geographically and physically - ... the prosecution have the most powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

(James Scobie, QC, criminal barrister)

What you should weigh in is that much of the material that was filmed with Scobie was subsequently cut out. Ergo, what he is speaking about is in all likelihood the pattern of offending that was present in the Spitalfields area, an area to which Lechmere is linked, geographically and physically, just as stated.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

how would anyone be able to distinguish wet blood from dried blood on an apron, blood will be absorbed by the material and will dry quickly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is there not a difference in appearance between fresh blood on an apron deposited on it 15 minutes before and blood on an apron which was deposited on it the day before?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes but he wouldn’t have had wet blood on him before he’d got to work.

how would anyone be able to distinguish wet blood from dried blood on an apron, blood will be absorbed by the material and will dry quickly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

He might not have used a clean apron on a daily basis !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes but he wouldn’t have had wet blood on him before he’d got to work.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fair point. But if Mizen or Paul had noticed wet blood on him before he’d arrived at work or a speck or two on his hands or face or hair then he’d have had a problem. Problems that would have been completely avoided by fleeing the scene.

He might not have used a clean apron on a daily basis !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even in today's world of meat deliveries if you look at the delivery drivers they invariably have blood-stained overalls

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fair point. But if Mizen or Paul had noticed wet blood on him before he’d arrived at work or a speck or two on his hands or face or hair then he’d have had a problem. Problems that would have been completely avoided by fleeing the scene.

[Trevor Marriott]

So, Trevor, is this really true? Did James Scobie really tell you that he was misled by the documentary crew, or is it something you just made up? As you may be aware, the question about provodong or not providing Scobie with the ”full facts” has been discussed before, at which time Paul Begg stepped in and established that it is perfectly correct to provide a vbarrister with the case against somebody and ask how to judge the strength of those points, without providing him with whatever points others may think speak against guilt. And it is laid out in the documentary too that what Scobie was asked to do was to assess the case against Chalred Lechmere, nothing else. And he assessed it as a prima faciae case, suggesting that Lechmere was guilty.
There is nothing at all controversial with that take - others, versed in matters legal, have given the exact same opinion on various forums. It is mostly out here on Casebook, where the discussion is largely dominated by rabid naysayers, thaty his verdict is pooed upon. It matters Vera little as such, but it is a matter of concern when people like you suddenly invent the idea that Scobie would have claimed to have been misrepresented. As Robert wrote in an early post on this thread, if that had been so, James Scobie would have made that very clear.

It is interesting to see those who are so very eager to speak of fabrications on behalf of those who support Lechmere are the first and most glaring fabricators themselves.

Goodbye.

There is no fabrication on my part, I did have a telephone conversation with Scobie within a day or so of the first showing of the program and what I have written is a true account of the conversation we had. He clearly had been misled by what he was provided with and the way questions were put to him for him to give the statements he made on screen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

... it is perfectly correct to provide a vbarrister with the case against somebody and ask how to judge the strength of those points, without providing him with whatever points others may think speak against guilt. And it is laid out in the documentary too that what Scobie was asked to do was to assess the case against Chalred Lechmere, nothing else. And he assessed it as a prima faciae case, suggesting that Lechmere was guilty.
There is nothing at all controversial with that take

In that case, why did Scobie state it as a fact that Lechmere had a pattern of offending?


The fact that there was a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of (sic) which he is linked - geographically and physically - ... the prosecution have the most powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

(James Scobie, QC, criminal barrister)

[jmenges]

Recent posts have been reported on this thread.
We are giving this exchange more leeway as both Christer and Trevor are published authors and both have been involved in documentaries.

See Major Rules about authors and public figures.
Particularly:

If there is evidence that an author deliberately left out information, failed to do research, plagiarized, fabricated evidence, whatever the criticism may be, then people's honest opinions -of the work and the author - will not be considered libelous/attacking.

JM

[Fisherman]

Scobie was misled and not given the full facts to give a proper legal opinion, he told me that himself following the airing of the program

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So, Trevor, is this really true? Did James Scobie really tell you that he was misled by the documentary crew, or is it something you just made up? As you may be aware, the question about provodong or not providing Scobie with the ”full facts” has been discussed before, at which time Paul Begg stepped in and established that it is perfectly correct to provide a vbarrister with the case against somebody and ask how to judge the strength of those points, without providing him with whatever points others may think speak against guilt. And it is laid out in the documentary too that what Scobie was asked to do was to assess the case against Chalred Lechmere, nothing else. And he assessed it as a prima faciae case, suggesting that Lechmere was guilty.
There is nothing at all controversial with that take - others, versed in matters legal, have given the exact same opinion on various forums. It is mostly out here on Casebook, where the discussion is largely dominated by rabid naysayers, thaty his verdict is pooed upon. It matters Vera little as such, but it is a matter of concern when people like you suddenly invent the idea that Scobie would have claimed to have been misrepresented. As Robert wrote in an early post on this thread, if that had been so, James Scobie would have made that very clear.

It is interesting to see those who are so very eager to speak of fabrications on behalf of those who support Lechmere are the first and most glaring fabricators themselves.

Goodbye.

[Sunny Delight]

You mean whilst looking down from heaven?

They wait until long after anyone has departed before making their case, when alibis are especially hard to come by.

No I don't mean that. I don't believe in heaven. I just find the whole thing utterly distasteful. As you say alibis cannot be tested, suspects cannot be cross examined, character references cannot be sought. Its a nonsense.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I dare say if some Internet sleuth on the flimsiest evidence had me down as one of the worst murderers of all time in 130 years time I would be utterly appalled.

You mean whilst looking down from heaven?

They wait until long after anyone has departed before making their case, when alibis are especially hard to come by.

[Sunny Delight]

Let's be honest the case against Charles Lechmere is built on a foundation of sand. In fact I find the whole thing utterly distasteful as by all accounts this was a decent living family man who lived a long life. To allege he was the Ripper based on almost nothing is very very poor form. At the end of the day this was a real living person and I dare say if some Internet sleuth on the flimsiest evidence had me down as one of the worst murderers of all time in 130 years time I would be utterly appalled.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I agree entirely with your analysis, but would add that it is when one considers the murder of Kelly that the statement 'Wearing bloodstained overalls, his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred' really falls down.

It assumes that he was working that day, even though it was some kind of a holiday.

And it also assumes that he could have set out for work, made a detour to Dorset Street, murdered Kelly, completed the butchery, which according to expert opinion would have taken two hours, cleaned himself up, walked to his place of work, and arrived no later than 4 a.m., which would have been impossible.

The statement quoted above also seems to imply that he arrived at work from Dorset Street wearing bloodstained overalls.

I quote further from the documentary: 'arriving at Broad Street depot in an apron smeared with blood would barely have raised an eyebrow.'

It would have raised plenty of eyebrows if the apron has been smeared with blood from a 'freshly slain' Kelly.