The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

I haven't said whether I agree or disagree with Scobie actually.

What I will say is that a QC's opinion can only be as good as the facts on which it is based. If he is being given incorrect facts then that will obviously affect the value of his opinion. In this case, he was being told that Lechmere said he left his house "at 3:30" which is not correct. If, as a result of this misleading information, he was being told that there was a missing period of time unaccounted for by Lechmere he will naturally have been misled into believing that the timings "really hurt" Lechmere and that Lechmere did not explain where he was at the time of the murder.

I also cannot see how Scobie can say that Lechmere (as opposed to any other resident of Whitechapel or the surrounding area) is "linked" geographically and physically to an area or pattern of offending. But it's clear from this comment that his opinion his based on the evidence as it stood after all the C5 murders, so, on that basis, he can't be saying that there was sufficient evidence to charge Lechmere with the Nichols murder as at 1 September 1888.

Well, Lechmere is certainly quoted as saying that he left his home about 3.30 - which is not the exact same thing as having been proven to have left at exactly 3.30.

Then again, I believe Scobie would know that the timings would be estimates, but as you know they can be wrong in either direction, and the general idea will be that if somebody says around 3.30, then 3.30 will be the time one works from. And, of course, some reports say 3.20.

Whether the film team did all they could to purposefully lie to Scobie, I donīt know - I was not there. But I did meet the crew on many occasions, and they did not give me the impression of being a pack of liars. But that of course only counts for so much, maybe they told porkies to everybody they met. Maybe they could not help themselves. And maybe they just included snippets where Scobie held relevant material in his hands, whereas they cut away the parts where he read baldfaced lies, printed by the crew.

You are of course correct on the matter of the whole of the C6 being counted in when Scobie assessed the geographical angle. It would be very odd otherwise, since there would be no logical reason to point out that Lechmere passed through Bucks Row - he already knew that. So this part exemplifies how Scobie looks on the overall geography of the whole of the Ripper case.

PS. For a moment, I thought your post would be an effort in the vein of Garethīs (Sam Flynn) - but then I came around again.

[David Orsam]

Well, Lechmere is certainly quoted as saying that he left his home about 3.30 - which is not the exact same thing as having been proven to have left at exactly 3.30.

No, it isn't and it's not the same as "at 3.30" either, which is what appeared in Scobie's briefing note.

Then again, I believe Scobie would know that the timings would be estimates, but as you know they can be wrong in either direction, and the general idea will be that if somebody says around 3.30, then 3.30 will be the time one works from. And, of course, some reports say 3.20.

Scobie shouldn't be having to assume anything. He is being told that Lechmere left his house at 3.30am and, while I haven't seen the rest of the note, it's not hard to imagine that he is also being told there is a major timing gap, considering the body was discovered in Bucks Row "at 3.45" and the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row would only have taken 7 minutes. In the context where only a few minutes is important, it is crucial that Scobie had been told of the word "about" in Lechmere's evidence.

Whether the film team did all they could to purposefully lie to Scobie, I donīt know - I was not there. But I did meet the crew on many occasions, and they did not give me the impression of being a pack of liars. But that of course only counts for so much, maybe they told porkies to everybody they met. Maybe they could not help themselves. And maybe they just included snippets where Scobie held relevant material in his hands, whereas they cut away the parts where he read baldfaced lies, printed by the crew.

Where did I say anyone was a liar? I just said they gave Scobie incorrect information.

You are of course correct on the matter of the whole of the C6 being counted in when Scobie assessed the geographical angle. It would be very odd otherwise, since there would be no logical reason to point out that Lechmere passed through Bucks Row - he already knew that. So this part exemplifies how Scobie looks on the overall geography of the whole of the Ripper case.

That's right but it seems to weigh heavily on him in assessing whether there is a prima facie case against Lechmere. Frankly I don't understand how he sees that Lechmere is geographically "linked" to the C5 or C6 crimes but if it's so important then presumably his view is that Lechmere could not have been charged with the Nichols murder in September 1888.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I only need a minimum of legal knowledge,to understand Cross could not have been found guilty of inflicting the injuries on Nichold,if ,by the time he came on the scene,the injuries had already been inflicted,and it is clear by his evidence,they had been. None of your beliefs will change that.
Being that yourself now has said the evidence would not be good enough to convict,tell us why not.

[drstrange169]

David Orsam posted,

>>Let me take this sentence which Fisherman does not include in his post:

We know for certain that Lechmere found the body of Nichols.>>

Christer is increasingly posting stranger and stranger stories. So much so that I think he is now surpassing Pierre in twaddle.

Sadly he doesn't have the courage to acknowledge his obvious errors, so we are not likely to see sense common from him for awhile.

I feel sorry for people like Ed Stow, who might be able to mount some credible evidence with regards to Lechmere, but Christer's antics have branded the whole thing in the nutmeg theory category that so dogs this subject and prevents serious discussion..

[drstrange169]

>>You HOPE so, and you may even THINK so in your delusions.<<

Interesting, so you are claiming the fact the newspapers didn't include Pitman's address is a delusion?

And presumably you are also claiming the fact that Pitman DID give his name to the court is also a delusion?

Here we are again, you make very unspecified allegations, whilst all around you are citing clear and verifiable factual information.

If you are only here to troll, what's the point?

[drstrange169]

>Never mind Dusty - heīs frothing at the mouth and thinks he senses prey.<<

There you go again, do you have anything grown up to contribute to this site?

I don't care, there are over a thousand hits everyday on this thread, it's your credibility and and integrity that's taking a battering here,

Now, care to answer some of the questions you keep avoiding?

[Fisherman]

>Never mind Dusty - heīs frothing at the mouth and thinks he senses prey.<<

There you go again, do you have anything grown up to contribute to this site?

I don't care, there are over a thousand hits everyday on this thread, it's your credibility and and integrity that's taking a battering here,

Now, care to answer some of the questions you keep avoiding?

List the question you claim I am avoiding, and I will answer each and every one of them. Donīt forget any of them, bring them all.

As for adding grown up material, the very reason I am avoiding YOU (not any questions, though) is that you are a mockery to that aim.

Now bring me that list of questions you claim to have asked and gotten no answers to, and letīs get that particular part of your delusions cleared away.

I could have added that YOU avoid to answer MY questions, but I wonīt. My aim is to have as little to do with you as possible.

Fot the record: Any post from you stating that you are not going to list the questions for one reason or another will go down the way it deserves. Make no mistake about it. So post the list and do so now, preferably pointing me to the posts where you originally asked these so called unanswered questions.

[Fisherman]

No, it isn't and it's not the same as "at 3.30" either, which is what appeared in Scobie's briefing note.



Scobie shouldn't be having to assume anything. He is being told that Lechmere left his house at 3.30am and, while I haven't seen the rest of the note, it's not hard to imagine that he is also being told there is a major timing gap, considering the body was discovered in Bucks Row "at 3.45" and the walk from Doveton Street to Bucks Row would only have taken 7 minutes. In the context where only a few minutes is important, it is crucial that Scobie had been told of the word "about" in Lechmere's evidence.



Where did I say anyone was a liar? I just said they gave Scobie incorrect information.



That's right but it seems to weigh heavily on him in assessing whether there is a prima facie case against Lechmere. Frankly I don't understand how he sees that Lechmere is geographically "linked" to the C5 or C6 crimes but if it's so important then presumably his view is that Lechmere could not have been charged with the Nichols murder in September 1888.

Scobie was given correct information as far as I can tell. I tend to believe the film crew did a very good job.

One can see the words "at 3.30" in Scobies material. One cannot see if it is preceded by a wordning that says that it is an approximate timing, like "he left home approximately at 3.30 or something like that. At least not as far as I can tell.

But I CAN tell that if the crew was intent on framing Scobie, they should have used the 3.20 time instead - which they did NOT do. They discerningly avoided that, and to me that means something. Maybe not to you, though.

You say that Scobie should not have to assume anything, and a few lines further down, you say it is not hard to imagine how Scobie was fed wriongful information.

Why should your proven imagining things be a better thing than any assumption you do not know if Scobie had to do or not? Is it hard to imagine that he was told by the crew that 3.30 was just on e of two suggested times, and that he needed to know that it was not an exact timing? Is the suggestions that the crew led Scobie wrong than the one that they led him right?

This is the kind of stuff that was originally peddled by the worst of the posters out here. I normally donīt count you into that score.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I only need a minimum of legal knowledge,to understand Cross could not have been found guilty of inflicting the injuries on Nichold,if ,by the time he came on the scene,the injuries had already been inflicted,and it is clear by his evidence,they had been. None of your beliefs will change that.
Being that yourself now has said the evidence would not be good enough to convict,tell us why not.

Of course he could have been found guilty. It would all hinge on the surrounding information as well as on the efforts of prosecution and defense.

It is only if we isolate the point that he could not have been found guilty - somebody has to find a murder victim.

But when we add the rest of the information, there is a prima faciae case, just like Scobie says, that demands answers from Lechmere. Without such answers, good enough to clear him, he would not walk free.

[Fisherman]

David!

I messed up my former post to you. Towards the end, it should read:

Why should your proven imagining things be a better thing than any assumption you do not know if Scobie had to do or not? Is it hard to imagine that he was told by the crew that 3.30 was just one of two suggested times, and that he needed to know that it was not an exact timing? Is a suggestions that the crew led Scobie wrong necessarily better than the suggestion that they led him right?

[caz]

Hi Christer,

I know we have been through this before, but since we only have your suspect's word for when he left home, it doesn't really matter whether he could be sure of the exact time or was only able to pin it down to the nearest, say, ten minutes. The point is, one cannot safely use the time Lechmere himself gave the authorities, to argue that he had thus failed to account for several 'missing' minutes, during which he could have encountered, attacked, killed and begun mutilating Nichols, before he heard Robert Paul approaching.

In short, the only way Lechmere had time to commit the crime was if he told the truth to the best of his knowledge concerning when he left home. Why would he have done that, unless he had no reason to think the truth could hurt him, because he had been innocently making his way to work via Buck's Row, just as Paul was doing only a short while later, when he happened to be first at the crime scene?

And don't give me all the old tosh about his wife making a secret note of the exact time she heard the front door shut and testifying against him, or at least suspecting him, if he dared to put his departure forward by the few minutes that would effectively have cleared him of the deed.

We all know that if Lechmere had said he left home those few minutes later, it would not have cleared him in your eyes. It would just be another lie he told in his bid to get away with murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

caz: Hi Christer,

I know we have been through this before, but since we only have your suspect's word for when he left home, it doesn't really matter whether he could be sure of the exact time or was only able to pin it down to the nearest, say, ten minutes. The point is, one cannot safely use the time Lechmere himself gave the authorities, to argue that he had thus failed to account for several 'missing' minutes, during which he could have encountered, attacked, killed and begun mutilating Nichols, before he heard Robert Paul approaching.

One has no other time given, so one works from this time, but one keeps in mind that it may be faulty to a smaller or larger extent.
However, one does not ditch it in order to save your feelings. It is the time Lechmere gave as departure time, and it is of interest that it seems to have provided him with time enough to be the killer - as it stands.

In short, the only way Lechmere had time to commit the crime was if he told the truth to the best of his knowledge concerning when he left home. Why would he have done that, unless he had no reason to think the truth could hurt him, because he had been innocently making his way to work via Buck's Row, just as Paul was doing only a short while later, when he happened to be first at the crime scene?

He could have done so - for example - if he was asked by the coroner when he left home, in which case we would not necessarily have this taken down in the inquest reports. It may have been a case of an unexpected question and too quick an answer. I agree that he should have said 3.40 to be on the safe side, but we all do mistakes from time to time, and in this case, the time he gave fits with the suggestion that he may have been the killer.
It is what it is.

And don't give me all the old tosh about his wife making a secret note of the exact time she heard the front door shut and testifying against him, or at least suspecting him, if he dared to put his departure forward by the few minutes that would effectively have cleared him of the deed.

I give you whatever I want to give you, like it or not. If you want to change that, you need to accept a few demands of my own about what YOU are supposed to say out here or not. Fair is fair.

We all know that if Lechmere had said he left home those few minutes later, it would not have cleared him in your eyes. It would just be another lie he told in his bid to get away with murder.

And how about in your eyes? Would such a time given be a recorded certainty in them?
Please let me know how you reason.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Christer,

I know we have been through this before, but since we only have your suspect's word for when he left home, it doesn't really matter whether he could be sure of the exact time or was only able to pin it down to the nearest, say, ten minutes. The point is, one cannot safely use the time Lechmere himself gave the authorities, to argue that he had thus failed to account for several 'missing' minutes, during which he could have encountered, attacked, killed and begun mutilating Nichols, before he heard Robert Paul approaching.

In short, the only way Lechmere had time to commit the crime was if he told the truth to the best of his knowledge concerning when he left home. Why would he have done that, unless he had no reason to think the truth could hurt him, because he had been innocently making his way to work via Buck's Row, just as Paul was doing only a short while later, when he happened to be first at the crime scene?

And don't give me all the old tosh about his wife making a secret note of the exact time she heard the front door shut and testifying against him, or at least suspecting him, if he dared to put his departure forward by the few minutes that would effectively have cleared him of the deed.

We all know that if Lechmere had said he left home those few minutes later, it would not have cleared him in your eyes. It would just be another lie he told in his bid to get away with murder.

Love,

Caz
X

right so all we know, he could have left earlier than 3:30 or 3:20, but if he said anything TOO early it makes him look more suspicious-does it not?

Also, it seems to me Lech and Paul should have seen each other before bucks row, going by Lechs statement of his actions once he got to bucks row and how quickly paul entered the scene.
I may be wrong but isn't it mere seconds that once Lech says he noticed the body that paul arrives?

[Fisherman]

right so all we know, he could have left earlier than 3:30 or 3:20, but if he said anything TOO early it makes him look more suspicious-does it not?

Also, it seems to me him and Paul should have seen each other before bucks row, going by Lechs statement of his actions once he got to bucks row and how quickly paul entered the scene.

They would quite probably have seen each other if Lechmere told the truth; Pauls doorstep was around 40 yards from Bath Street, and the junction of Foster and Bath was well lit by the brewery lamps there.
They should also have heard each other, given that the night was described as a very silent one, with not a soul around.

This is one of the matters that give Lechmere away. Of course, we can say that if this was so, then Nichols should have bled for many a minute after the carmen left her, if ... oh, wait - she did.

Well then, if the guily scenario should be considered, then why did not Lechmere cover the ... oh, wait - the wounds to the abdomen WERE covered.

Well then, the carman would not have had the time to ... oh, wait, Lechmere said he left around 3.20 or 3.30.

Anyway, the carmen sought out a police and told him about ... oh, wait - it seems the PC disagrees about what was said. Apparently he claims that Lechmere told him that a colleague of his was in place, seemingly handling matters in Bucks Row.

Now, move along folks, nothing to see here!

What? Lechmere? Who was Lechmere, you ask? Ah, I see why - he called himself Cross when he spoke to the police after the murder, see. Thatīs why you donīt know who I am talking about.

Anyway, as I said, nothing at all to be seen here. And those who speak for potential guilt of the carman are soon enough dissolved by the insightful and wise criticism offered by Dust. Oh, wait ... Dusty!

[David Orsam]

List the question you claim I am avoiding, and I will answer each and every one of them. Donīt forget any of them, bring them all.

Does this apply to all members?

In which case, can you answer the question (which you have previously avoided) as to what route you took when filming the documentary to time the distance between Doveton Street and Durward Street?