The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

>>Scobie - who has probably forgotten more about legal proceedings than you will ever learn about them - says that there is a court case, implicating him as the killer.<<

Except we don't know how accurate the information Scobie based his opinion on was.

If we look at the TV show show it appears that he was given misinformation and made his comments based on that misinformation.

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

>>Of all those who have singlehandedly found victims of extensive sharp violence - how many did this when the victim was still bleeding five minutes after they found them?<<

In the case of Jack the ripper?

No. Generally speaking.

[Fisherman]

Don't think I've read the Christer's theories so comprehensively demolished by proven evidence as much as they have in this thread.

I think we are finally seeing the demise of his Lechmere fantasy.

Dusty (Dr Strange 169) has made it a habit to call me a liar. He has also made it a habit not to answer my posts, instead opting for delivering answers to questions I have never asked, apparently in an effort to muddle things.
He repeatedly claims that I cannot answer his questions and that I run away from debate with him.
I have, however, answered all his questions numerous times, and he is simply rehashing them and claiming that they have not been answered.
This is an intolerable situation, and one that I will not honor other by than producing this prewritten text, over and over again, as many times as it takes.

I am not opposed to the idea that Dusty may better his ways, and become a useful debating partner, and I will therefore read his posts to see if there is something in them I feel has gone unanswered, in which case I will answer it. Likewise, if I feel the need to make any point on account of Dustys posting, I will do so.
However, if the old state of things prevails, with false allegations and rehashing of questions that have been answered, then this post is all I will offer.

[Fisherman]

The above doesn't seem to have much meaning.

What James Scobie QC actually said in the documentary was this:

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds 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, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of 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." Then, in a separate quote: "What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

In respect of the timing point, as glimpsed on camera, Scobie's briefing paper states:

"KEY EVIDENCE (3)

TIMINGS

Charles Lechmere (as we know now him to be called) is reported as saying he left home for work at 3:30am, although in other reports he appears to initially say he left home even earlier at, 3:20".

This is, of course, inaccurate. Cross was reported as saying that he left for work at "about" 3:30am. The word "about" is missing from Scobie's briefing note. It is speculation to say that he initially said "3:20"."

The notion, put forward by Scobie, that Cross never gave "a proper answer" as to where he was that morning is ludicrous given that he said he was walking to Bucks Row from his home in Doveton Street!

I also can't see how he can say of Cross that "there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically".

A further visible page of Scobie's briefing note, incidentally, summarises Dr Jason Payne-James' belief that: "The lack of blood at the [scene of the crime] suggests she was strangled to death before her neck was cut. This removed any arterial [illegible]. Death by asphyxia takes a minimum of 2 minutes and a maximum of 4 minutes.

Lack of wounds on her hands and arms suggests there was no struggle. This corroborates [illegible] hypothesis."

So the long and the short of it is that you disagree with Scobie. Or you think you do.

I see.

[Fisherman]

An instance of the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy, perhaps, or the "My Dad's Bigger than Yours" fallacy, as I like to call it?

I prefer it to call it listening to an authority or an expert where I do not have the full insight myself.

If you think authorities and experts are useless, then so be it.

As for having a view of my own, I think you are aware that I do.

[Fisherman]

Unless he was planning on being Jack the Ripper more than 25 years before the event, the "circumstances" are a moot point. We know there's a reasonable possibility that Lechmere used the name "Cross" since at least 1861, where he is recorded as such in the Census.

And we know that there is not a scrap of evidence that he did - apart from in murdetr inquests.

Plus we know that he was a prolific user of the name Lechmere whenever there was a pen and a scrap of paper present.

So one name is in evidence as one he used when he was not at a murder inquest, while the other sorely lacks this.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Your post 415.
You begin by writing,"Nothing has been proven Harry",then go on to say but there are a lot of inconsistencies.Yes maybe,but nothing that is inconsistent with innocence.

Further on you state,"None of these things are enough to convict him in a court of law,and he may have been able to to offer alternate innocent e xplanations to them". Well he did offer innocent explanations.Cross explains his presence in Bucks Row,how he came upon the woman lying there,of Pauls arrival,and their decision to tell a policeman.All which points to innocence,not guilt.

I notice your little bit of sidestepping to shift the onus for a prima facia case onto Scobie.Lost your confidence for doing it yourself, If Scobie is so talented in matters of law,he can always post himself.I'm sure David,Dusty etc, will a ccomodate him.He might prove a bigger laugh than yourself.

Why don´t YOU aspire to prove James Scobie a laugh, with all of that legal knowledge of yours? Should be a piece of cake!

[Fisherman]

Just looking at the Lipski case for something else, i noticed that no newspaper gave, key witness, Richard Pitman's address, yet the Old Bailey transcripts clearly show he stated his address as 2 White's Gardens, Star St. Commercial Rd.

Ditto: Harris Dywien (sp?). In his case only one newspaper I found gave his address. Sound familar?

I think we can finally close this part of the Lechmere loony theory.

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

Both aspirations are wrong, however. You will see.

[Fisherman]

Bet we don't though.

A bit more clearsighted, I notice.

Never mind Dusty - he´s frothing at the mouth and thinks he senses prey.

He forgot to bring the teeth, though.

[Elamarna]

Is he - or she? I would say that depends wholly on the circumstances. Remember - Tutanchamon was murdered, and Howard Carter found him.

Hi

Not been posting much recently due to personal reasons,

However I have been reading everything and just could not let this pass for several reasons:


1. Inaccuracy.
2. Similarities between the two cases( Tut and Lechmere).


The question of inaccuracy first

Two points:

Carter was of course not the original finder of the tomb, it having been entered and robbed soon after the burial.



Secondly who says he was murdered?

Certainly not a view supported by either the actual historical or medical evidence.

It was first proposed in the 1960's as the result of the interpretation of limited x-rays of the skull.

This was pushed in the 1990's by non experts, indeed I believe they may have been ex policemen, who took this limited evidence and extrapolated it to give, not only a "fact" but a motive and a likely killer based on the personalities and ambitions they invented for the characters involved.

This resulted not only in a book, but in a TV documentary, which presented all the invention as fact, and even named an innocent man. based entirely on assumptions and no hard evidence.


Of course this was not the first time and certainly not the last time a TV program has done such.

Of Course work since 2000 has shown all of this to be completely without any basis in fact at all.

BTW it seems the cause of death was either the result of an accident, broken leg, damage to chest, possible septicaemia or Malaria, which Tutankamun was suffering from. (established fact).


And then I was struck by the similarities in the case:

Firstly we have the different names used :

Fisherman used Tutanchamon, the commonly used forms are Tutankhamun or Tutankhamen.

And of course he changed his name from his original form of Tutankhaten to one of the above.

Its not simply that the last part has been altered, It changed the identity of the holder of the name.

So we have use of multiple names.




Then we have the point that we have no contemporary evidence with regards to his death and there has been debate to the cause and the wounds.

Such of cause is true to a degree in the Nichols case, many of the original sources in the Nichols case are missing and what we do have is open to much debate.


We had a similar situation where due to lack of physical evidence an individual is suggested as the killer on purely circumstantial, in the case of Tut ultimately nonexistent, evidence


The one major difference is that in the case of Tut we have been able to look at the physical evidence using modern science and have some physical facts which cannot be disputed.

This does not included the DNA evidence which is highly controversial and still open to debate.

While some may consider this all off topic, I find the similarities between the two cases to be amusing and the use of inaccurate historical facts to be inexcusable.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Hi

Not been posting much recently due to personal reasons,

However I have been reading everything and just could not let this pass for several reasons:


1. Inaccuracy.
2. Similarities between the two cases( Tut and Lechmere).


The question of inaccuracy first

Two points:

Carter was of course not the original finder of the tomb, it having been entered and robbed soon after the burial.



Secondly who says he was murdered?

Certainly not a view supported by either the actual historical or medical evidence.

It was first proposed in the 1960's as the result of the interpretation of limited x-rays of the skull.

This was pushed in the 1990's by non experts, indeed I believe they may have been ex policemen, who took this limited evidence and extrapolated it to give, not only a "fact" but a motive and a likely killer based on the personalities and ambitions they invented for the characters involved.

This resulted not only in a book, but in a TV documentary, which presented all the invention as fact, and even named an innocent man. based entirely on assumptions and no hard evidence.


Of course this was not the first time and certainly not the last time a TV program has done such.

Of Course work since 2000 has shown all of this to be completely without any basis in fact at all.

BTW it seems the cause of death was either the result of an accident, broken leg, damage to chest, possible septicaemia or Malaria, which Tutankamun was suffering from. (established fact).


And then I was struck by the similarities in the case:

Firstly we have the different names used :

Fisherman used Tutanchamon, the commonly used forms are Tutankhamun or Tutankhamen.

And of course he changed his name from his original form of Tutankhaten to one of the above.

Its not simply that the last part has been altered, It changed the identity of the holder of the name.

So we have use of multiple names.




Then we have the point that we have no contemporary evidence with regards to his death and there has been debate to the cause and the wounds.

Such of cause is true to a degree in the Nichols case, many of the original sources in the Nichols case are missing and what we do have is open to much debate.


We had a similar situation where due to lack of physical evidence an individual is suggested as the killer on purely circumstantial, in the case of Tut ultimately nonexistent, evidence


The one major difference is that in the case of Tut we have been able to look at the physical evidence using modern science and have some physical facts which cannot be disputed.

This does not included the DNA evidence which is highly controversial and still open to debate.

While some may consider this all off topic, I find the similarities between the two cases to be amusing and the use of inaccurate historical facts to be inexcusable.


Haha! Well, I should have guessed that somebody with the moniker El Amarna would surface and flog my behind for spreading Egyptian dung.

Inexcusable indeed!

And of course, the underlying question about how not all finders of murdered people (unlike king Tut) are NOT always suspects suddenly becomes of a very secondary interest.

Thanks for the lesson, Steve. I REALLY need to brush up on my Egyptology!

PS. I wonder what Tut called himself down at the pub ...

[Elamarna]

Elamarna: Hi

Not been posting much recently due to personal reasons,

However I have been reading everything and just could not let this pass for several reasons:


1. Inaccuracy.
2. Similarities between the two cases( Tut and Lechmere).


The question of inaccuracy first

Two points:

Carter was of course not the original finder of the tomb, it having been entered and robbed soon after the burial.



Secondly who says he was murdered?

Certainly not a view supported by either the actual historical or medical evidence.

It was first proposed in the 1960's as the result of the interpretation of limited x-rays of the skull.

This was pushed in the 1990's by non experts, indeed I believe they may have been ex policemen, who took this limited evidence and extrapolated it to give, not only a "fact" but a motive and a likely killer based on the personalities and ambitions they invented for the characters involved.

This resulted not only in a book, but in a TV documentary, which presented all the invention as fact, and even named an innocent man. based entirely on assumptions and no hard evidence.


Of course this was not the first time and certainly not the last time a TV program has done such.

Of Course work since 2000 has shown all of this to be completely without any basis in fact at all.

BTW it seems the cause of death was either the result of an accident, broken leg, damage to chest, possible septicaemia or Malaria, which Tutankamun was suffering from. (established fact).


And then I was struck by the similarities in the case:

Firstly we have the different names used :

Fisherman used Tutanchamon, the commonly used forms are Tutankhamun or Tutankhamen.

And of course he changed his name from his original form of Tutankhaten to one of the above.

Its not simply that the last part has been altered, It changed the identity of the holder of the name.

So we have use of multiple names.




Then we have the point that we have no contemporary evidence with regards to his death and there has been debate to the cause and the wounds.

Such of cause is true to a degree in the Nichols case, many of the original sources in the Nichols case are missing and what we do have is open to much debate.


We had a similar situation where due to lack of physical evidence an individual is suggested as the killer on purely circumstantial, in the case of Tut ultimately nonexistent, evidence


The one major difference is that in the case of Tut we have been able to look at the physical evidence using modern science and have some physical facts which cannot be disputed.

This does not included the DNA evidence which is highly controversial and still open to debate.

While some may consider this all off topic, I find the similarities between the two cases to be amusing and the use of inaccurate historical facts to be inexcusable.


Haha! Well, I should have guessed that somebody with the moniker El Amarna would surface and flog my behind for spreading Egyptian dung.

Inexcusable indeed!

And of course, the underlying question about how not all finders of murdered people (unlike king Tut) are NOT always suspects suddenly becomes of a very secondary interest.

Thanks for the lesson, Steve. I REALLY need to brush up on my Egyptology!

PS. I wonder what Tut called himself down at the pub ...

Probably a "pet" unofficial name in private,never recorded.

just like the possibility of Charles Allen...........


Steve

[Fisherman]

Probably a "pet" unofficial name in private,never recorded.

just like the possibility of Charles Allen...........


Steve

One "probably" and one "possibility", thus.

My, are we making progress!

[Sam Flynn]

I wonder what Tut called himself down at the pub

Two-Tankard-Man

[David Orsam]

So the long and the short of it is that you disagree with Scobie. Or you think you do.

I see.

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.