Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Yes Fisherman,obviously a police case in a prima facie case is going to suggest guilt,and obviously a defence is going to suggest innocence.The magistrate hearing the case has to decide,on the face of it,whether the level of guilt is greater ,and sufficient to warrant a trial.At this level it doesn't have to be
beyond a reasonable doubt.
So here is the poblem.We know that in 1888 no policeman suggested guilt on the part of Cross,and no prima facie hearing took place.The evidence that existed then has not changed,and is the only evidence that can be considered.How then can any one,Scobie included,decide that a prima facie case would succeed?

Because he weighed in the whole series of murders, whereas the contemporary police never suspected Lechmere after just the one murder, that of Nichols. If you care to take the time to listen to what Scobie says, he speaks about a pattern of offending in an area Lechmere is linked to, for example. After the Nichols murder, my suggestion is that Lechmere was never contacted by the police and never investigated by them, something that dovetails with how they didnīt find out his name.

[Trevor Marriott]

lech has a few yellow flags and i find him being seen alone with a freshly killed victim as the biggest. i cant recall ever hearing of an innocent witness in this weird sich. imho lech is a valid suspect no big wup.

The Victorian Doctors evidence to show the time of death (Freshly killed) which you and fish seek to rely on has now been dispelled by modern day medical experts opinions, so Nichols was probalby killed sometime before Lechmere even left his home

Dr Biggs commnets
In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours.

Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

In addittion to negating this part of the Lechmere theory Dr Biggs has also commented on the blood flow also an integral part of this misguided theory and opines that blood flow could still occur from a dead body many hours after death

Its time to put this Lechmere theory to bed, the facts that you Fish and others seek to rely on are flawed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

How do you know with such certainty what a hypothetical jury would think when presented with the facts about his use of two names? What about if a number of the jury themselves went by a couple of different names? There are a several family circumstances where this can happen so it is is quite common. Aren't you playing 'fantasy football' here?

If I was on the jury I'd be perfectly happy with his explanation and wouldn't see it as suspicious at all. I'd be more concerned with evidence that he committed the murder, of which I've seen none presented here so far (and no, evidence that he was at the scene is not evidence that he committed murder)

All the best.

The changing of the name could easily have been regarded as uncontroversial by a jury - if, and only if, he ALSO gave his real and registered name at the occasion. Once he did not, it is my educated guess that no jury in the world would regard it as uninteresting when. it came to light. There are no academic papers written on the subject, so it is up to each and every one to make their own calls about it.

As for evidence that he was at the scene not being evidence that he committed the murder, I think I have commented on that hundreds of times on this thread alone. If I have failed capitally to get across my take that finding a body/being at a crime scene is not a fellany, I really canīt see why?

What I find those who dislike Lechmere as the Ripper will do regularly is to be very economical with the details surrounding him "being at the scene". A presence at a murder scene can be more or less compatible with guilt (which is not the same as me saying it points out guilt, mind you).

Letīs compare him to James Britton, for examplem, one of the butchers from WInthrop Street. He was at the scene, and he was in all probability not the killer. He arrived there as a result of PC Thain telling him about the woman lying in the street with a cut throat.

So he was at the scene. And he was not the killer.

Does that mean that people at the scene are not killers?

It isnīt that easy, sadly. One has to weith in the circumstances under which each and every person at the scene was there. Once we do, we will se that some people are more LIKELY to be the kille than others. For example, if somebody is alone with the victim for a sufficient amount of time to be the killer, it will mean that they are likelier the killer than those who are not.

Can you see how this applies tom Lechmere? He was with the victim for an undefined amout of time, unless we choose to accept what he himself said about it.

Furthermore, if somebody who has had the opportunity to be the killer, as per the former point, it is not a good thing for that somebody if he is at the scene at a point in time that is consistent with being the killer.

Can you see how this applies to Lechmere?

Moving on, if somebody who has had the opportunity to be the killer and has been present at the scene at a time that is consistent with being the killer, is ALSO somebody who presents information that involves anomalies and/or contradictions, then the likelihood of him being the killer is further increased.

Can you see who this applies to Lechmere?

Last, but not least, if if somebody who has had the opportunity to be the killer and has been present at the scene at a time that is consistent with being the killer, and who who presents information that involves anomalies and/or contradictions, is ALSO found out to have a pattern of movement that seems to fit with a whole series of crimes, then the likelihood of him being the killer is very high.

Can you see how this applies to Lechmere?

By all means, go on about how you donīt think that Lechmere was the killer, but donīt tryy and make it look as if the only point against him is that he was "at the scene", because that is not giving the full picture. And the full picture MUST be given if we are to condemn or acquit suspected killers.

[Fisherman]

This is the bumbling buffoon age of ripperology!

The Baron

I could not agree more.

[Fisherman]

Agreed about now - I don't know about then. But don't you need more than that, plus an ID confusion that didn't seem to confuse anybody at the time?

I do. I'd love a motive - even a hint of violence or mental instability would help the case. He just looks like a normal bloke who led a long and respectable life to me (from what little we know of him), despite all the innuendo.

All the best

So you want a motive for a serial killer who enjoys cutting people open and digging a diverstity of innards out of their bodies?

Theft, perhaps?

[Trevor Marriott]

Dew on the meeting of Lechmere and Paul:

“A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:

"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."

Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.

"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."

The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.

All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?”

There are plenty more examples like this. Anyone who relies on a comment made by Dew 50 years after events he probably had no personal involvement in is a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

Why is is that when references are made to comments made by officers who were dirrectly involved in these murders in later years, references that clearly go against someones theory we always seem to get the same comments that, they are unreliable, or they have forgotten, or they have lost their marbles.

A prime example is the newspaper article in the NOW dated 1896 where Insp Reid was interviewed about the Mary Kelly murder, in which he states that all the organs were accounted for, clearly a major blow to those who want to belive the old accpted theory that the killer did remove and take away her heart especially when he was head of Whitechaoem CID and attended the crims scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Because he weighed in the whole series of murders, whereas the contemporary police never suspected Lechmere after just the one murder, that of Nichols. If you care to take the time to listen to what Scobie says, he speaks about a pattern of offending in an area Lechmere is linked to, for example. After the Nichols murder, my suggestion is that Lechmere was never contacted by the police and never investigated by them, something that dovetails with how they didnīt find out his name.

Give it a rest please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

This is Christer's complete item at #2000 which he and I have been bogged down with for some time - and my sincere apologies to everyone for that!

I have said many times that the point is trivial, but I keep getting come-backs from Christer, so I will ask everyone to look at what was actually written by him, and then, as far as I am concerned this thread is a waste of my time, and I will not return to it. I have always said that the subject is an interesting one, that it is reasonable to consider CAL as a suspect if you wish, but that the evidence is not sufficiently strong to even nearly convince me. I looked forward to constructive debate on the issues, but except for a few persons, this has not happened, and allegations of misrepresentations, and similar insults have been the norm. I can't be bothered any more.

With regard to the above quotation, I suggested that Dew's recollections have not always been utterly reliable, but that if he was to be believed, could not his statement that CAL was a "thoroughly honest man" suggest not necessarily that he was "seemingly not investigated" but that the police had investigated and cleared him? If one can propose the former, then equally one can suggest the latter.

Christer's response at #2152 was "You can of course not read my mind. If you could you would know that I never considered Dew's words evidence. I thought that you would easily see this when I worded myself the way I did. I was wrong, but there you are."

Could I easily see that from #2000? Does it look as if "Have you read Dew on the matter?....that is a helpful thing to digest." was not offered as evidence that Cal was "seemingly not investigated"? If it wasn't intended to be taken into consideration, why was it mentioned at all?

Then Christer added at#2154, "it boils down to the two matters of how clear I was and how perceptive you were. And apparently I was hoping for too much"

Well, for me he was crystal clear. The two sentences that make up the first paragraph of #2000 must be connected or they shouldn't be placed together.

I sought meaningful discussion, but found unfounded allegations of misrepresentation, and boundless sarcasm instead, so as far as this thread is concerned, Goodbye everyone, and my thanks to those who contributed openly, honestly maturely and politely.

I too seek a meaningful discussion. You claimed that I would have presented Dews take as evidence. I didnīt. Ergo, my take on things was misrepresented. Apparently, you misunderstood me, and this was why you misrepresented me.

Apparently, it was an unintentional misrepresentation, and thatīs just fine. We all get it wrong at times, for various reason, and I hold no grudge towards you for it. Itīs just that I wanted to clarify my stance.

All good?

[Fisherman]

Dew on George Yard Buildings:

“These buildings were just off High Street, Whitechapel, and thus quite close to the police station to which I was attached. Originally the buildings had been a weaving factory. This had been converted into mean flats housing innumerable poor class families.”

I was under the impression that GYB were purpose-built Artisan’s Dwellings. It’s nice to learn new things.

Glenn Andersson, who wrote a book for the Swedish audience about the Ripper crimes, made that exact same mistake, putting George Yard buildings down as an old complex. Now I understand why.

[Fisherman]

The Victorian Doctors evidence to show the time of death (Freshly killed) which you and fish seek to rely on has now been dispelled by modern day medical experts opinions, so Nichols was probalby killed sometime before Lechmere even left his home

Dr Biggs commnets
In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature, you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours.

Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said.

It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’.

In addittion to negating this part of the Lechmere theory Dr Biggs has also commented on the blood flow also an integral part of this misguided theory and opines that blood flow could still occur from a dead body many hours after death

Its time to put this Lechmere theory to bed, the facts that you Fish and others seek to rely on are flawed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Read the modern take on Nicholsī death in my book, Trevor. There are two eminent and well regarded forensic pysicians commenting on the matter.

Oh, and say hello to Biggs from me!

[Fisherman]

Give it a rest please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And apart from generic duck-quacking, where would you fault the post?

[Trevor Marriott]

And apart from generic duck-quacking, where would you fault the post?

The fault lies with you and the flawed evidence you keep spouting about each time someone questions your theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The fault lies with you and the flawed evidence you keep spouting about each time someone questions your theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More generic quacking?

[Greenway]

So you want a motive for a serial killer who enjoys cutting people open and digging a diverstity of innards out of their bodies?

Theft, perhaps?

Theft is a possible motive yes, but how would that be a motive for Lechmere? Stealing meat for his mother's cat food business perhaps? I don't think so.

I want evidence that Lechmere had a motive to be 'cutting people open and digging a diverstity of innards out of their bodies'. He had no history of violence or mental instability throughout his life. And yet he committed around a dozen of the most gruesome murders in UK history in a very short space of time, whilst working long hours at a physically demanding job, having a family and running a coffee shop on the side?

All the evidence suggest to me he was a perfectly normal person.

All the best.

[MrBarnett]

Why is is that when references are made to comments made by officers who were dirrectly involved in these murders in later years, references that clearly go against someones theory we always seem to get the same comments that, they are unreliable, or they have forgotten, or they have lost their marbles.

A prime example is the newspaper article in the NOW dated 1896 where Insp Reid was interviewed about the Mary Kelly murder, in which he states that all the organs were accounted for, clearly a major blow to those who want to belive the old accpted theory that the killer did remove and take away her heart especially when he was head of Whitechaoem CID and attended the crims scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In this case because Dew’s errors are glaringly obvious. To what extent do you imagine he, a lowly H Div PC, was personally involved in the investigation into the Nichols murder which occurred in J Div?