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

[ohrocky]

Surely the entire Scobie issue could be firmly put to bed (one way or the other) if the complete, unredacted bundle that was presented to him, and upon which he reached his conclusions, was to be published in its entirety. I have suggested this here before but it hasn't happened.

I would have thought that Fisherman would do so without question if it would put an end to the constant challenges and doubt about Scobie's conclusions.

[Abby Normal]

I love how all of this is complete bulwarks.

I don't know about complete bulwarks harry.

He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols

OK found standing near her body

Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits

maybe. maybe not. but he was seen with her body before raising any kind of alarm. If I was the producers I would have mentioned that little oddity.

Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest

well according to Mizen policeman he did lie (about being needed by another cop) and gave apparently a name he wasn't used to using more commonly.

And the ripper murders started just after he moved into the area.

I believe this is basically true, but leave to fish to confirm.

Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

I don't know about blood stained (I doubt but possible) but his route to work would place him geographically near at roughly TOD to at least four of the murders (depending on who they include-but actually could be five if they include tabram and Mckenzie along with polly, chapman and Kelly).

so perhaps embellishments and interpretation but COMPLETE bulwarks?!? not so sure.

when I think of complete bulwarks its more along the line Van gogh, maybrick, royal conspiracy and the like. or perhaps a closer comparison-Trows docu naming Mann as the ripper. Now THAT was complete bulwarks.

[Harry D]

If his opinion was based on erroneous or speculative stuff like this, then his verdict is pretty unsafe:

"He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

I love how all of this is complete bulwarks.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But in Fisherman land all those who disagree with his theory must be wrong to even question the great Fisherman.

That appears to be what it amounts to John. Fish, one of the principal proponents of Lechmere, is completely unbiased whilst those of that disagree are all hopelessly biased.

The name thing for example is still trumpeted as sinister behaviour (a point against Lechmere) whereas the question is a simple one. Did Lechmere’s use of the name Charles Allen Cross Of 22 Doveton Street in anyway give him any advantage in avoiding police suspicion? The answer is no. But no matter how many times this is pointed out this non-point is still used against him.

[John Wheat]

...which manages to be dismissive of eight named people at the same time. That must be some kind of record!

But in Fisherman land all those who disagree with his theory must be wrong to even question the great Fisherman.

[Sam Flynn]

More bullshit.

...which manages to be dismissive of eight named people at the same time. That must be some kind of record!

[John Wheat]

As if you wouldn´t go "Oh, they chose a prosecutor! Why not give Lechmere a defense lawyer instead, who would be MUCH more inclined to take heed of the defense material - the biased bastards!"

And the material Scobie was given is in no way unknown, it has been presented out here a million times. He mentions the timings and the geography especially, and yes, they ARE damning factors.

The people hunting in pack out here are the same as always, of course. And it is interesting to see how they vary their biting techniques:

- Scobie was lied to, certainly.
- We cannot tell what he was told, and so his verdict is worthless.
- If he was not handed the defense material, he has no right to weigh up the accusatory side.
- No expert will deviate from the thinking suggested by the ones who make a docu. Therefore, the views experts deliver are of no value.

Certainly, with the kind of "detective work" you guys use, it is quite understandable how you feel that there is nothing at all to incriminate Lechmere.

Then again, it is the kind of "detective work" that need to be out on papers instead of on virtual boards. If it had been on paper, I could think of one way of using the material...

Enough said about this. Dr Strange, GUT, Trevor Marriott, Sam Flynn, John Wheat.... it is not exactly an unexpected congregation. And not exactly one that should inspire awe. Add Patrick, Herlock and Steve and we have the same gang who always try to shoot down the Lechmere theory, and who don't let one ridiculous failure after another dishearten them.

That just about says it all, and so I see little reason to encourage this manure production line by answering them any further.

Wake me up when somebody who matters has something to say.

More bullshit.

[Fisherman]

I also wonder why a prosecutor wasn’t chosen for the advice?

As if you wouldn´t go "Oh, they chose a prosecutor! Why not give Lechmere a defense lawyer instead, who would be MUCH more inclined to take heed of the defense material - the biased bastards!"

And the material Scobie was given is in no way unknown, it has been presented out here a million times. He mentions the timings and the geography especially, and yes, they ARE damning factors.

The people hunting in pack out here are the same as always, of course. And it is interesting to see how they vary their biting techniques:

- Scobie was lied to, certainly.
- We cannot tell what he was told, and so his verdict is worthless.
- If he was not handed the defense material, he has no right to weigh up the accusatory side.
- No expert will deviate from the thinking suggested by the ones who make a docu. Therefore, the views experts deliver are of no value.

Certainly, with the kind of "detective work" you guys use, it is quite understandable how you feel that there is nothing at all to incriminate Lechmere.

Then again, it is the kind of "detective work" that need to be out on papers instead of on virtual boards. If it had been on paper, I could think of one way of using the material...

Enough said about this. Dr Strange, GUT, Trevor Marriott, Sam Flynn, John Wheat.... it is not exactly an unexpected congregation. And not exactly one that should inspire awe. Add Patrick, Herlock and Steve and we have the same gang who always try to shoot down the Lechmere theory, and who don't let one ridiculous failure after another dishearten them.

That just about says it all, and so I see little reason to encourage this manure production line by answering them any further.

Wake me up when somebody who matters has something to say.

[John Wheat]

He's irrelevant because the info he was given would have been extremely biast much like the documentary he appeared in.

[drstrange169]

>> IF his opinion was based on erroneous or speculative stuff like this, then his verdict is pretty unsafe:<<

Quite so.

[drstrange169]

Thirty minutes plus sounds about the right shooting ratio. As Scobie's expertise is specifically in defending clients, presumably Lechmere's potential innocence with regard to the evidence was also discussed.

Looking at the cases where James Scobie has got his clients off, mainly drug and murder related, and where, in the case of murder, the accused was at or very to the murder scene, I have absolutely no doubt he would be able to get any "probative" case against Lechmere, based on the known evidence, dismissed pretty quickly.

[Sam Flynn]

Like any “expert” his opinion is only as good as the information he based it on. The first thing you ask any expert witness is about just that issue, without knowing what the opinion is based on it is worthless.

If his opinion was based on erroneous or speculative stuff like this, then his verdict is pretty unsafe:

"He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols.. Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred."

[Trevor Marriott]

Jame Scobie Q.C. participated in a entertainment show set up to portray Charles Allen Lechmere as Jack the ripper.

Scobie specializes in defending clients, so is an odd choice for the producers to use. He appears in the programme for 1 minute and 18 seconds, Scobie's actual interview with the crew would have been considerably longer. What else he said, what caveats he may have put forward, we do not know. Again, rather oddly as his expertise is in defending clients, no relevant defence comments were included in the show.

Also, unknown is what "evidence" he was given to review, however, just before he appeared in the show the voice over tells the viewers,

"The weight of evidence is against Charles Lechmere. He was found standing over the dead body of Polly Nichols. No one saw anyone else at the crime scene. Her wounds were extremely fresh and Lechmere was alone with her for longer than he admits. Lechmere then lied to the police and gave false details at the inquest. And the ripper murders started just after he moved into the area. Wearing blood stained overalls his job placed him at four of the killings at the time they occurred. Another happened by his mother's house, yet another on his old route to work."

The voice over then introduced James Scobie Q.C.

So was this the "evidence" Scobie made his comments on?

Since he references a couple of the points in the 1 minute 18 seconds edited appearance, it would seem so, to some degree at least.

Scobies actual interview was in the region of 30 minutes !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

I also wonder why a prosecutor wasn’t chosen for the advice?

[GUT]

Like any “expert” his opinion is only as good as the information he based it on. The first thing you ask any expert witness is about just that issue, without knowing what the opinion is based on it is worthless.