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]

As should be obvious, there was never any obstacle for somebody - anybody - to go and find themselves another barrister of the same magnitude as James Scobie, who would be willing to say that there is absolutely no case at all against the carman, the way layman legal eagles out here claim. Until that happens, people need to either conclusively prove that Blink Films lied to/misled James Scobie, or simply accept that there is a suspect in Ripperology who fills the requirements for a legal case that suggests guilt. This is of course all based on a premise that is never there in a real trial, namely that the accused party does not have a say or an option to clear his name. We are therefore dealing with a theoretical matter only - but that does not take away from how the accusatory points WERE enough for Scobie to say what he said.

I have stated all of this before, in other wording and on different forums, and the only reason for me reiterating it was Trevors claim about James Scobie complaining about having been misled. Now that we can see that this was not true, I believe I have made my point to the full, and so I withdraw from the exchange.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. 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.

Scobie was clearly told that Cross had left his house at 3.30. This created an entirely false picture that there was a provable unexplained gap of time. If that gap of time had provably have existed then it wouldn’t have taken a Barrister to have spotted it’s significance so it’s no wonder that Scobie felt that Cross had a case to answer. So naturally, being presented by ‘inaccurate’ information Scobie can be excused for arriving at an obviously inaccurate conclusion. Remove the imaginary gap and the case against Cross is exposed as a complete non-starter.

I wonder if anyone has contacted Scobie and asked him “would you still come to the same conclusion now that you know that Cross actually only said that he’d left his house at around 3.30 and that the body was likely to have been discovered at around 3.40?”

I think we all know the answer to that one.

[Fisherman]

Scobie was clearly told that Cross had left his house at 3.30. This created an entirely false picture that there was a provable unexplained gap of time. If that gap of time had provably have existed then it wouldn’t have taken a Barrister to have spotted it’s significance so it’s no wonder that Scobie felt that Cross had a case to answer. So naturally, being presented by ‘inaccurate’ information Scobie can be excused for arriving at an obviously inaccurate conclusion. Remove the imaginary gap and the case against Cross is exposed as a complete non-starter.

I wonder if anyone has contacted Scobie and asked him “would you still come to the same conclusion now that you know that Cross actually only said that he’d left his house at around 3.30 and that the body was likely to have been discovered at around 3.40?”

I think we all know the answer to that one.

If he left at 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. If he left at around 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. Any other claim is nothing but a party trick. Plus it remains that neither of us have seen the full material Scobie got, so there can be no knowing whether or not it contained the ”around” in the undisclosed material. As I have repeatedly pointed out - for deaf ears.
And away I go.

[Trevor Marriott]

If he left at 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. If he left at around 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. Any other claim is nothing but a party trick. Plus it remains that neither of us have seen the full material Scobie got, so there can be no knowing whether or not it contained the ”around” in the undisclosed material. As I have repeatedly pointed out - for deaf ears.
And away I go.

There is an old saying "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" and away you go !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

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.

So you are claiming the documentary deliberately edited Scobie's comments about crime in the neighborhood to create the false impression that Scobie was claiming that Lechmere had a pattern of offending?

It wouldn't surprise me, but where is your evidence of deliberate falsification by the creators of the documentary?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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.

I do not think your argument can be sustained.

Here is the same quotation in context.

I have placed the quotation which I previously quoted, and to which you refer, in bold:


[Following a summary of the case against Lechmere, spoken by the narrator of the documentary, including the charge that Lechmere's job placed him at the scenes of four of the murders at the times that they occurred, Scobie says:]

The timings really hurt him ... And the question is, where were you? What were you doing during that time? Because actually, he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way and behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like... When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant - and they mount up in his case - it becomes one coincidence too many.

The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of [sic] which he is linked geographically and physically; you add all those points together, piece it all together, and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If he left at 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. If he left at around 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. Any other claim is nothing but a party trick. Plus it remains that neither of us have seen the full material Scobie got, so there can be no knowing whether or not it contained the ”around” in the undisclosed material. As I have repeatedly pointed out - for deaf ears.
And away I go.

If Lechmere left home at around 3.30, how could his job have placed him at the scene of Tabram's murder at the time that it occurred - around 2.30?

And how could his job have placed him at the scene of Kelly's murder and mutilation in such a way that he could have arrived at work by 4 a.m.?

Are these not questions to which the documentary-makers needed to have answers with which they could provide Scobie before he gave his opinion?

[Fiver]

If he left at 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. If he left at around 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. Any other claim is nothing but a party trick.

That's your time estimate and you are far from unbiased. We can't exactly replicate Lechmere's walk to Bucks Row, part of it lies underneath a Sainsburys. Did you walk it at 3:30am with Victorian street lighting? How do the length of your stride and your walking pace compare with those of Charles Lechmere?

What we know is that Charles Lechmere estimated that he left home at about 3:30am. According to PC Mizen, who as a knocker upper probably had a watch, he encountered Lechmere and Robert Paul at around 3:45am. This is corroborated by the testimony of PC Neil and PC Thane, who saw the body at around 3:45am. Estimating the time to get from the murder site to PC Mizen, we can see Inspector Abberline's estimate that Lechmere found Nichols body at about 3:40am is a good estimate.

The timings support Charles Lechmere's testimony. Any claim of a gap requires ignoring the majority of the evidence on timing.

[Fiver]

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”.

Trevor's statement is supported by what Scobie said in the documentary. Scobie's statements were a mix of provably false statements and speculation presented as fact. This is only possible if Scobie was mislead.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If he left at 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. If he left at around 3.30, he would be at the murder site at around 3.37. Any other claim is nothing but a party trick. Plus it remains that neither of us have seen the full material Scobie got, so there can be no knowing whether or not it contained the ”around” in the undisclosed material. As I have repeatedly pointed out - for deaf ears.
And away I go.

It’s a strange claim considering that the ‘around’ was never mentioned on the documentary. The fact remains that the use of the word ‘around’ means that Cross was estimating the time that he left his house. An estimation means a range of possibilities and no, 3.30 isn’t the likeliest. What it means, and I’m talking ‘exactly what it means’ here is that Cross left his house within a range of times encompassing a period before and a period after 3.30. We can make no assumptions.

So all that we are left with is Cross leaving his house at an unspecified time and discovering the body at an unspecified time. We have no way of narrowing down or evaluating either of those times. Therefore no claim can be made that there was an unexplained gap. It’s a very straightforward point and it’s nowhere near enough to be used as a point against Cross.

[Fisherman]

As usual out here on Casebook, we have a number of characters who make appallingly faulty statements and draw wildly wrong conclusions. It is nothing new, it has been going on for years. I have no intention of going into a debate with these people, because they do not offer up any debate along traditional and fair lines. I will just take a few examples and then I will leave it at that. It is more than enough to point out what is going on here.

1. "Trevor's statement is supported by what Scobie said in the documentary."

Trevors statement was that James Scobie had told Trevor that he had been misled. James Scobie never told Trevor that at all. It is Trevor suggestion that Scobie was misled, and although the suggestion is a very controversial one, there is nobody to stop posters from putting forth controversial suggestions. But claiming that James Scobie himself made the claim that he had been misled is false. It therefore applies that the claim that Trevors statement is supported by what Scobie said in the documentary, is also false. James Scobie did not say in the documentary that he had been misled.

2. "Any claim of a gap requires ignoring the majority of the evidence on timing."

No, it does not. As I said before, if Lechmere said he left home at 3.30, then he should have been at the murder site at around 3.37. If he said that he left home at "around" 3.30, he should have been at the murder site at around 3.37.
The "majority of the evidence" is a term that is absolutely worthless in this context, because going on what is suggested to be the majority of the evidence would equal going on some sort of invented statistics.
It will no doubt entail for example the timings of the three PCs, and a suggestion that since the three PCs are somehow and for some strange reason more likely to be correct than Robert Paul, John Thain, Dr Llewellyn and the coroner, who ended up with an established and fixed certainty of the finding of the body having occurred at a time not far off 3.45. Regardless of what stance we choose on these matters (and that stand will be nothing but a chosen vantage point that may or may not be wrong), we STILL have Lechmere stating an approximate departure time that suggests an approximate arrival time outside Browns stable yard at around 3.37. And that means that the information given by the carman is very much in line with a time gap.

3. "Are these not questions to which the documentary-makers needed to have answers with which they could provide Scobie before he gave his opinion?"

This question is very obviously based on the idea that the documentary makers did not provide Scobie with answers to the questions mentioned. But how does that work? How can the one posing the question know what the material James Scobie was supplied with does not involve a discussion about the questions mentioned?
To that, we should add that we do not have the full details of the working days Lechmere had on the days in question. We don't even know if he did work on these days. And we have no idea about the exact time at which the two victims mentioned were killed. We do know, however, that two medicos gave very varying timings about Kellys death.
Therefore, we only have a problem if we choose to accept chosen timings as being written in stone. And, interestingly, if we were to do it like that, then how is it that Phillips suggested timin in the Chapman case is rejected, whilst Killeens timing in the Tabram case is bought straight of, no questions answered?

There has to be a larger flexibility and a better understanding of the parameters involved than what is suggested by the three examples above. Otherwise, it will look as if the posters involved are preoccupied, not with a genuine intent to look at the matters under discussion from all angles, but instead to for example try and lead on dishonesty without substantiation.

That is not what a serious debate should be about.

Fully realizing that these remarks of mine will be met with scorn and more accusations of foul play, I am leaving the discussion. If it is not enough to prove somebody wrong as per the above, then what reason is there to waste time on it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Any claim of a gap requires ignoring the majority of the evidence on timing."

No, it does not. As I said before, if Lechmere said he left home at 3.30, then he should have been at the murder site at around 3.37. If he said that he left home at "around" 3.30, he should have been at the murder site at around 3.37.

And just as ‘around 3.30’ means a range of times starting (A) before 3.30 (at no specific time) and (B) ending after 3.30 (at no specific time) then we can with equal justification say that this meant that he should have arrived in Bucks Row at sometime between point (A) plus approximately 7 minutes and point (B) plus approximately 7 minutes. If we allow an entirely reasonable 5 minute either way margin for error this means that all that we could say is the Cross could have arrived in Bucks Row any time between around 3.32 and around 3.42. We can narrow it down no further than that.

The "majority of the evidence" is a term that is absolutely worthless in this context, because going on what is suggested to be the majority of the evidence would equal going on some sort of invented statistics.

Not true. It confirms that there can be no doubt that Cross was merely estimating the time that he left his house. A very obvious way of confirming this is this question - what is the likelier, that the small minority of reporters simply didn’t hear the would ‘around’ and so omitted it from their report, or that the majority somehow heard a word that was never used or simply invented its use? Not exactly a difficult choice is it? Likewise the one reporter who said 3.20 clearly misheard what was said. So no, we shouldn’t use the term ‘the majority of evidence,’ because we can state it more confidently. We should confidently state that Cross undoubtedly said that he’d left the house at around 3.30. Which is an estimation by anyone’s interpretation.

It will no doubt entail for example the timings of the three PCs, and a suggestion that since the three PCs are somehow and for some strange reason more likely to be correct than Robert Paul, John Thain, Dr Llewellyn and the coroner, who ended up with an established and fixed certainty of the finding of the body having occurred at a time not far off 3.45.

And again we have to point out the obvious fact that ‘not far off’ isn’t a specific indicator of time. It takes no Holmes-like deduction to work out how he arrived at this. He has three Constable’s who all quote 3.45. Cross found the body before their involvement. Therefore he must have discovered the body at ‘not far off 3.45’ (which isn’t a time) 3.40, 3.41, 3.42, 3.43 and 3.44 are all ‘not far off 3.45’ by anyone’s understanding of language. The Coroner made no attempt to be more specific for a very obvious reason - he had no way of knowing.

.
Regardless of what stance we choose on these matters (and that stand will be nothing but a chosen vantage point that may or may not be wrong), we STILL have Lechmere stating an approximate departure time that suggests an approximate arrival time outside Browns stable yard at around 3.37. And that means that the information given by the carman is very much in line with a time gap.

This is a clear attempt to skew the evidence in favour of a guilty Cross. Using a reasonable margin when dealing with estimates (I’d use a minimum of 5 minutes in this case) then the most that we can say is that Cross could have left his house any time between 3.25 and 3.35 (with no time more likely than any other) and if the journey took 7 minutes then he arrived in situ somewhere between 3.32 and 3.42.

We can be no more accurate than that, under any circumstances. But we can ask this very pertinent question - if we go to the earlier end of the range then we would have to ask (considering how long the murder would have taken) what would a guilty Cross have been doing for all of that time?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

3. "Are these not questions to which the documentary-makers needed to have answers with which they could provide Scobie before he gave his opinion?"

This question is very obviously based on the idea that the documentary makers did not provide Scobie with answers to the questions mentioned. But how does that work? How can the one posing the question know what the material James Scobie was supplied with does not involve a discussion about the questions mentioned?

One can know very easily: the evidence is that Tabram was murdered between 2.00 and 3.30 a.m. and that Lechmere left for work at about 3.30 a.m.

The documentary-makers could not have satisfactorily explained to Scobie how Lechmere could have committed a murder before he had even left his home.

Similarly, they could not have explained how he could have got from Bethnal Green to Dorset Street, met Kelly, gone with her to Miller's Court, murdered her, mutilated her far more extensively than any other victim, cleared the blood off his hands, walked to Broad Street and arrived at work - all in the space of half an hour.

You yourself could not manage it when I put these points to you on another website some time ago.

In the end, you had to resort to suggesting that it was Lechmere's day off.

To that, we should add that we do not have the full details of the working days Lechmere had on the days in question. We don't even know if he did work on these days.

In that case, how could Lechmere's job have placed him at the scene of Tabram's or Kelly's murder at the time they occurred, as was suggested to Scobie?

And we have no idea about the exact time at which the two victims mentioned were killed. We do know, however, that two medicos gave very varying timings about Kellys death.

Therefore, we only have a problem if we choose to accept chosen timings as being written in stone. And, interestingly, if we were to do it like that, then how is it that Phillips suggested timin in the Chapman case is rejected, whilst Killeens timing in the Tabram case is bought straight of, no questions answered?

Everyone knows that I emphatically do not reject Phillips' timing!

But it does not matter exactly when Kelly died; you cannot explain how Lechmere could have done what the murderer did and managed to arrive at work on time unless you have him leaving for work hours early, which conflicts with the evidence, or you have Lechmere taking the day off, in which case your - and the documentary-makers' - argument that it was Lechmere 's job that placed him at the scene of the murders simply collapses.

That is not what a serious debate should be about.

Fully realizing that these remarks of mine will be met with scorn and more accusations of foul play, I am leaving the discussion. If it is not enough to prove somebody wrong as per the above, then what reason is there to waste time on it?

I am trying to have a serious debate and I am not accusing you of foul play!

And I suggest that you are leaving the discussion precisely because you cannot prove me wrong!

[Fiver]

2. "Any claim of a gap requires ignoring the majority of the evidence on timing."

No, it does not. As I said before, if Lechmere said he left home at 3.30, then he should have been at the murder site at around 3.37. If he said that he left home at "around" 3.30, he should have been at the murder site at around 3.37.
The "majority of the evidence" is a term that is absolutely worthless in this context, because going on what is suggested to be the majority of the evidence would equal going on some sort of invented statistics.
It will no doubt entail for example the timings of the three PCs, and a suggestion that since the three PCs are somehow and for some strange reason more likely to be correct than Robert Paul, John Thain, Dr Llewellyn and the coroner, who ended up with an established and fixed certainty of the finding of the body having occurred at a time not far off 3.45. Regardless of what stance we choose on these matters (and that stand will be nothing but a chosen vantage point that may or may not be wrong), we STILL have Lechmere stating an approximate departure time that suggests an approximate arrival time outside Browns stable yard at around 3.37. And that means that the information given by the carman is very much in line with a time gap.

Any claim of a gap requires ignoring the majority of the evidence on timing. The invented statistics are yours and do not present the whole picture. Dr Llewellyn's testimony does not provide evidence for a time gap. The coroner's statements do not provide evidence for a time gap. PC Thain's evidence directly contradicts the idea of a time gap.

Robert Paul is the only person to claim the body was found at 3:45am. This claim occurs in a newspaper account before the inquest and repeatedly contradicts his inquest account. The 3:45am time is contradicted by PC Mizen, PC Neill, and PC Thain. The 3:45am time is is discounted by Inspector Abberline. The 3:45am time for finding the body is not supported by anyone at the inquest - not by the coroner, not by Dr Llewellyn, not even by Robert Paul.