Evidence of innocence

[Fisherman]

Where do you get the idea,fisherman,that in a criminal investigation,an opinion about the value of the accusatory evidence can be reached on accusatory evidence only.Are you implying that an accused person has,in law,no right of reply to such evidence?What law are you quoting.?

Why, the laws of logic, of course. Accusatory avidence can be assessed by a barrister and he can say whether or not it is sufficient to warrant a trial. He will of course be aware that contradictory evidence may exist that alters the picture, but up until the time that such evidence is presented, he is quite capable of assessing whther or not the accusatory evidence as such suggests guilt or not.

And guess what, Harry? It DOES suggest guilt in Lechmeres case, as per ... well, you know who!

[Fisherman]

I dont need to see what he was presented with. I relayed to him the full facts as they were known at the time. It was he who indicated that some of those impotrtant facts he had not been presented with and that had he been provided with them his opinon would have not been as it was projected in the program.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are moving the goalposts here, Trevor. What you have said before is that Scobie acknowledged that since he had not taken part of all the material available, that COULD perhaps have made him reach a different opinion. Now, you suddenly claim that he said he WOULD have done so.

That is not a very reliable way to go about things, Trevor.

Can you expand now on which exact things it was Scobie would have said should have altered his verdict? While you do, I may go looking for the listing you provided earlier, and where it said that he simply acknowledged that added information could alter his take on things - a VERY sound approach, by the way.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are moving the goalposts here, Trevor. What you have said before is that Scobie acknowledged that since he had not taken part of all the material available, that COULD perhaps have made him reach a different opinion. Now, you suddenly claim that he said he WOULD have done so.

That is not a very reliable way to go about things, Trevor.

Can you expand now on which exact things it was Scobie would have said should have altered his verdict? While you do, I may go looking for the listing you provided earlier, and where it said that he simply acknowledged that added information could alter his take on things - a VERY sound approach, by the way.

No I cant expand due to the passage of time excatly but I know the backbone of your theory was presented to him by Blink films and what was left out were the commonly accpted rebuttals to your theory which he was not made aware of which when put to him by myself he openly admitted would have a direct impact on any likely proposed prosecution and his opinion as it was aired.

Lets look at it realistically you theory on the face of it looks a viable suspect theory, but when the main parts of your theory are carefully scrutinized as they have been and were done so at the time you went public with it is not such a viable suspect theory with supporting evidence.

Therefore Blink films could not have included in the program anything that would weaken the suspect theory for the viewing public and so the program i would sugegst was edited in a way that what was aired with nothing included to weaken your original suspect theory.

On a side not I was approached by Blink films to take part in this program but on speaking to them and on airing my professional opinion they did not come back to me. Now I wonder why. I also belive that Neil Bell was also approached and he did not take part either, and so no independent ripperologists took part. now dont you think that strange beariing ni mind it is the independent ripperolgistsw who have highlighted the flaws in your suspect theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No I cant expand due to the passage of time excatly but I know the backbone of your theory was presented to him by Blink films and what was left out were the commonly accpted rebuttals to your theory which he was not made aware of which when put to him by myself he openly admitted would have a direct impact on any likely proposed prosecution and his opinion as it was aired.

So you don´t even know what it was you presented to him as alternatives to the guilty perspective? And you don´t know if he said "THAT would make me change my mind!" or "If there are contradictory matters at hand, they could perhaps have mede me give a different verdict"?

Where are we going to hang your hat, Trevor? We both know that there IS no evidence for innocence, so where, oh where?

Lets look at it realistically you theory on the face of it looks a viable suspect theory, but when the main parts of your theory are carefully scrutinized as they have been and were done so at the time you went public with it is not such a viable suspect theory with supporting evidence.

On the face of it. Prima facie.
From where do you get it that the theory has been seriously challenged? It never has."Maybe it wasn´t him" covers it.

Therefore Blink films could not have included in the program anything that would weaken the suspect theory for the viewing public and so the program i would sugegst was edited in a way that what was aired with nothing included to weaken your original suspect theory.

Of course Blink would not present any material that could weaken the theory. If they could find it. Then again, the task handed to Scobie was to say if the ACCUSATORY evidence was enough to warrant a trial, and he said it was. Wait! I´ve told you this before, have I not...?

On a side not I was approached by Blink films to take part in this program but on speaking to them and on airing my professional opinion they did not come back to me. Now I wonder why. I also belive that Neil Bell was also approached and he did not take part either, and so no independent ripperologists took part. now dont you think that strange beariing ni mind it is the independent ripperolgistsw who have highlighted the flaws in your suspect theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your professional opinion? U-huh.

And you wonder why they didn´t choose you? Really?

And what´s this talk about an "independent ripperologist"? Would you call yourself that? Actually, even if you had not nailed your colours to the mast via Mr Figtree, it would not help much. Many of those who have no suspet are anything but independent - they have staked their reputations on their assertions that the killer can never be named in many a case, and so they have a beef in the matter too.
What I specifically asked for was that I wanted a seasoned policeman with NO previous engagement or interest in the Ripper saga to give his professional (!) view. And that request of mine resulted in Blink Films contacting Amdy Griffiths, who made a very good job.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your professional opinion? U-huh.

And you wonder why they didn´t choose you? Really?

And what´s this talk about an "independent ripperologist"? Would you call yourself that? Actually, even if you had not nailed your colours to the mast via Mr Figtree, it would not help much. Many of those who have no suspet are anything but independent - they have staked their reputations on their assertions that the killer can never be named in many a case, and so they have a beef in the matter too.
What I specifically asked for was that I wanted a seasoned policeman with NO previous engagement or interest in the Ripper saga to give his professional (!) view. And that request of mine resulted in Blink Films contacting Amdy Griffiths, who made a very good job.

Yes, he did based on him I suspect also not being provided with the full facts

if you can prove that these contributers were provided with the full facts and not your own theory which was supported by your misguided interpretation of the true facts then so be it. but I am not going to hold my breath waiting.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Yes, he did based on him I suspect also not being provided with the full facts

if you can prove that these contributers were provided with the full facts and not your own theory which was supported by your misguided interpretation of the true facts then so be it. but I am not going to hold my breath waiting.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, Trevor, when it comes to Andy Griffiths, I can tell you more or less exactly what material he was given. Him I met, and he was handed the very same material as I got, a compilation of many, many newspaper articles from the era, not least the inquest reports, together with a number of police reports. Our material was the same, and when I wanted to point Griffiths to something, I could just say "It´s on page XX", and he´d be able to find it.

Whether or not he had been previously spirited away and subjected to advanced drip feeding of pro Lechmere thoughts and suggestions, I cannot say, since I did not speak to him in advance, nor did I ask him if he had been brainwashed as we met. Most people who are brainwashed are not even aware of it, so it would perhaps have been a moot question anyway.

When it comes to the communication in between him and me, I must be honest and say that when he had positive things to say about Lechmere as a suspect, I didn´t reprimand him for not looking at the opposite side. Generally speaking, when he said "I really think you may have found the Ripper" (and yes, he DID say exactly that), I answered something along the line of "Yes, I actually think we have" instead of saying "Andy, you should not be so categorical. Remember that there are things pointing away from the carman too! And never - NEVER - forget that SOMEBODY must find a dead body!!".

I think that just about covers what I have to say about the information Andy Griffiths worked from.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, Trevor, when it comes to Andy Griffiths, I can tell you more or less exactly what material he was given. Him I met, and he was handed the very same material as I got, a compilation of many, many newspaper articles from the era, not least the inquest reports, together with a number of police reports. Our material was the same, and when I wanted to point Griffiths to something, I could just say "It´s on page XX", and he´d be able to find it.

Whether or not he had been previously spirited away and subjected to advanced drip feeding of pro Lechmere thoughts and suggestions, I cannot say, since I did not speak to him in advance, nor did I ask him if he had been brainwashed as we met. Most people who are brainwashed are not even aware of it, so it would perhaps have been a moot question anyway.

When it comes to the communication in between him and me, I must be honest and say that when he had positive things to say about Lechmere as a suspect, I didn´t reprimand him for not looking at the opposite side. Generally speaking, when he said "I really think you may have found the Ripper" (and yes, he DID say exactly that), I answered something along the line of "Yes, I actually think we have" instead of saying "Andy, you should not be so categorical. Remember that there are things pointing away from the carman too! And never - NEVER - forget that SOMEBODY must find a dead body!!".

I think that just about covers what I have to say about the information Andy Griffiths worked from.

But you still dont know what Scobie was provided with because you admit you had no contact with him and I did so who shall the people believe?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But you still dont know what Scobie was provided with because you admit you had no contact with him and I did so who shall the people believe?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Preferably James Scobie.

[rjpalmer]

"We know that when Lechmere took the stand in the Working Lads Institution on the Monday, he was firmally identified by PC Mizen. Apparently, no such identification had taken place before, and so we have further evidence that Lechmere was very late in coming forward."

Curiouser and curiouser.

In which inquest report is this to be found, Fish? Which one are you using?

You are aware, are you not, that when someone is 'formally' identified in court, it is for the benefit of the jury and the coroner? It doesn't mean that the two men have never laid eyes on each other before.

And before Lechmere ever took the stand and gave his deposition, Mizen had already referred to him--three times--as Cross. How do you explain Mizen's ability to do that, if he had never met CAL until that day and CAL had not yet revealed his name to the court?

The Times, 4 September:

"Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up."

The reality is that you have no idea when or how Cross first came forward; the historical record is silent. It could have been as simple as Cross and Paul going to the Bethnal Green station, where they corroborated each other's accounts--questioned separately, as Tomkins and his fellow horse slaughterers were questioned separately. Paul may have initially cooperated, but only became reluctant once he realized he'd have to skip a half day of work and attend the inquest. Indeed, he implied as much.

Speaking of attending an inquest, are we to believe that Cross's employers would have been unaware that he took a half-day off to attend the inquest? Would he not have sought their permission, and would they not have read the newspapers the next morning??

And none of them notice that their employee referred to himself as 'Cross'? No alarm bells rang in the minds of Pickford & Co's payroll clerks?

Good gawd Fish, the circulation of the Star alone was 125,000 copies per day. Yet no one at Pickfords had the sense to realize who this man was and inform the police?

Imagine the day after the inquest, when Pickford employees were making their daily rounds. Customers making small talk would have asked them about this employee. The carmen would have talked about it among themselves. These places are gossip mills. By 10 a.m. the whole company would know who the employee on Doveton Street was.

[Mark J D]

... Andy Griffiths ... was handed the very same material as I got, a compilation of many, many newspaper articles from the era, not least the inquest reports, together with a number of police reports.

Actually, the glimpses we get of those materials in the programme really do make it look like someone at Blink Films took care to do a good job: they look like clear, full colour reproductions, and lots of them...

M.

[Fiver]

No, Dew was not any investigation bigwig in 1888. And so we should consider that before we use him as ironclad evidence.

You're the one who introduced Dew into the thread, where you tried to use Dew to prop up your theory that Lechmere was not investigated by the police.

[Fiver]

The argument was being built that because Dew had described Lechmere as honest, he must have been thoroughly checked out.

Actually, the original argument was that because Dew had described Lechmere as honest, he must not have been thoroughly checked out.

But that was Fisherman and since when do you criticize Fisherman when he engages in unsupported speculation?

[Fisherman]

"We know that when Lechmere took the stand in the Working Lads Institution on the Monday, he was firmally identified by PC Mizen. Apparently, no such identification had taken place before, and so we have further evidence that Lechmere was very late in coming forward."

Curiouser and curiouser.

In which inquest report is this to be found, Fish? Which one are you using?

You are aware, are you not, that when someone is 'formally' identified in court, it is for the benefit of the jury and the coroner? It doesn't mean that the two men have never laid eyes on each other before.

And before Lechmere ever took the stand and gave his deposition, Mizen had already referred to him--three times--as Cross. How do you explain Mizen's ability to do that, if he had never met CAL until that day and CAL had not yet revealed his name to the court?

The Times, 4 September:

"Constable G. Mizen, 56 H, stated that at a quarter past 4 on Friday morning he was in Hanbury-street, Baker's-row, and a man passing said "You are wanted in Baker's-row." The man, named Cross, stated that a woman had been found there. In going to the spot he saw Constable Neil, and by the direction of the latter he went for the ambulance. When Cross spoke to witness he was accompanied by another man, and both of them afterwards went down Hanbury-street. Cross simply said he was wanted by a policeman, and did not say anything about a murder having been committed. He denied that before he went to Buck's-row he continued knocking people up."

The reality is that you have no idea when or how Cross first came forward; the historical record is silent. It could have been as simple as Cross and Paul going to the Bethnal Green station, where they corroborated each other's accounts--questioned separately, as Tomkins and his fellow horse slaughterers were questioned separately. Paul may have initially cooperated, but only became reluctant once he realized he'd have to skip a half day of work and attend the inquest. Indeed, he implied as much.

Speaking of attending an inquest, are we to believe that Cross's employers would have been unaware that he took a half-day off to attend the inquest? Would he not have sought their permission, and would they not have read the newspapers the next morning??

And none of them notice that their employee referred to himself as 'Cross'? No alarm bells rang in the minds of Pickford & Co's payroll clerks?

Good gawd Fish, the circulation of the Star alone was 125,000 copies per day. Yet no one at Pickfords had the sense to realize who this man was and inform the police?

Imagine the day after the inquest, when Pickford employees were making their daily rounds. Customers making small talk would have asked them about this employee. The carmen would have talked about it among themselves. These places are gossip mills. By 10 a.m. the whole company would know who the employee on Doveton Street was.

We are going to do things slightly differently this time, R J. You have a habit of avoiding questions asked, and that won´t do. The very matter we are discussing now dates back to when you conveniently skipped over a large collection of questions, picking just the one of them, that of Lechmere´s late arrival. The rest, the full picture: Nope. No answer.

It is not surprising. It is the common method of the naysayers: pick the items one by one and try to explain them away. Explaining them ALL away is much harder, not to say impossible.

Anyways, I asked two questions in my latest post to that you also skipped over. And they are vital to the understanding of them matter at hand, so you will be served the same dish again:

1. Why is it that Neils name was mentioned in combination with the initial stories about the mysterious two men, the ones he denied on the Sunday? If he had not spoken to two men, why is his name specifically targetted, as per the article in the Star - where, incidentally, it was not said that Neil was CALLED to the spot by two men, but instead ACCOMPANIED to it.

2. And while you are at it, could you offer a guess as to who these two men would have been? Or were they four? Or six? There is learoom for you to claim that this too is unproven, but I would advice against such a stance.

Once you have provided answers to these questions, we can proceed. Tomorrow, perhaps?

[Fiver]

It’s clear to me that for dramatic effect Dew was contrasting the ‘honest’ Lechmere who notified Mizen of the woman lying in Bucks Row with the shady, suspicious Paul who disappeared like a phantom into the East End labyrinth.

Except Dew didn't say that.

Fisherman said "Have you read Dew on the matter, where he describes Lechmere as a rough but thouroughly honest man, whereas he paints a picture of Paul as a man trying to avoid the law?" But Fisherman's summary is not particularly accurate.

Here's what Dew actually said. Dew does not describe Lechmere at all. Dew excuses both Lechmere and Paul for not "dashing for a policeman". Dew also excuses Paul for not appearing voluntarily - "Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police? In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed."

Dewalso considered the Nichol's killing to be the third murder in series. As I have already shown, some of the press agreed with Dew and most of the press thought Nichols was at least the second victim.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"On 1st September, 1888, the Ripper struck a third time. His victim was found in the early hours of the morning lying in the gateway of Essex Wharf, in Bucks Row, just off Brady Street, and not far from Hanbury Street, the scene later of a duplicate murder.

Bucks Row was just a few yards outside the boundary of " H " Division to which I was attached. The district was squalid. The spot for such a crime was ideal. Close by were a number of slaughterhouses.

No better illustration of East-End conditions at the time could be afforded than by the behaviour of Charles ______ , a middle-aged carman, who was the first to see the body.

The carman was on his way through Bucks Row to his day's work when he saw a huddled mass in the gateway of Essex Wharf. He crossed from one side of the street to the other to investigate.

The light was just sufficient to show him that the form was that of a woman and that she had been mishandled. Her clothing had been disarranged and her bonnet had fallen from her head. There was something strange too about the position of the woman's head.

In any other district of London such a discovery would have sent the man dashing for a policeman. But this was Whitechapel, where crimes of violence and outrage were of everyday occurrence.

The carman shook the woman. She did not stir. He decided it was a case of a woman who had fainted following assault, and, making a mental note to report the matter to the first police constable he saw, he went on his way.

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?

In any other district and in any other circumstances this would have been a natural inference, but in the East End of London at this time the man might have had a dozen reasons for avoiding the publicity which would have followed. He might have been a criminal; or he might have been afraid, as so many were, to risk the linking of his name with a Ripper-crime.

The carman reported his early-morning discovery to a policeman, but in the meantime, P.C. Neal, making his regular beat along Bucks Row, had en the huddled form lying in the gateway.

The policeman, with the aid of his bullseye, saw what the others had overlooked. The woman's head had been almost severed from the body."

[Fiver]

If we begin from the back, we can see that there is a Charles Cross mentioned in the police reports from September and October. Not a Charles Lechmere. Like it or not, this is compelling evidence that the police did not investigate him.

That is speculation on your part. It is not evidence, let alone compelling evidence that the police did not investigate CAL.

Let's get back to the fact - there is a Charles Cross mentioned in the police reports from September and October. That could mean several things.

* The police did not investigate CAL.
* The police investigated CAL, but in a cursory manner. If they talked to his wife, but only referred to him as "your husband Charles", there is little chance the name Lechmere would come up.
* The police investigated CAL, but did not discover the name Lechmere because everyone they talked to knew him as Charles Cross.
* The police investigated CAL, discovered the Lechmere name, but decided that writing "Cross" was more convenient than writing "Cross aka Lechmere" every time they referred to him.

No doubt there are other possibilities. But the police use of the name Cross is not proof that they did not investigate CAL. (It's not proof that they did, either.)