Evidence of innocence

[harry]

Well lets count how many followers are agaiinst my thinking,and then count how many posters agree with you fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Well yes fisherman you do not like being misrepresented.Pity you do not mind misrepresenting.
Would I Mr Barnett.So please, YOU tell me what Scobie means,and we will see if I do not understand.

I actually do mind misrepresenting very much. Which is why I avoid it.

[harry]

Apparantly not.Are you saying Fisherman,that Mr Barnett will not detail Scobies thinking?

[Fisherman]

Apparantly not.Are you saying Fisherman,that Mr Barnett will not detail Scobies thinking?

What I am saying can be read in a large number of posts right here, Harry. But never mind me, you have a mission, don´t you? To collect all the faithful under your banner and show me just how much better liked your reasoning is than mine.

Tend to that instead of posting misrepresentations of what I say, and I will be a very happy man.

Now I have really no intention of listening to or replying to your posts in the near future. I can only hope that you stop making false claims that I must correct, because I am really, really fed up with it by now.

Let´s give it a rest, shall we?

[jmenges]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;n769885]

thats all you got. lame . good bye. go do something useful rj. the diary threads await you

Do we think this post is ‘doing something useful’?
Or is it ignoring my plea to keep things civil?

I have the ban hammer out, folks.

If ya’ll can’t police yourselves, I will.

JM

[Fisherman]

A further point to R J Palmer, on whether or not Charles Lechmere was available to the police early or late in the inquest process:

-On the 9th of August 1888, the inquest into the death of Martha Tabram commenced. On this first day of it, John Saunders Reeves, the finder of Tabrams dead body, testified.

-On the 10th of September 1888, the inquest into Annie Chapmans death commenced. On this first day of it, John Davies, the finder of Chapmans dead body, testified.

-On the 1st of October 1888, the inquest into Elizabeth Strides death commenced. On this first day of it, Lewis Diemschitz, the finder of Strides dead body, testified.

-On the 4th of October 1888, the inquest into Catherine Eddowes death commenced. On this first day of it, Edward Watkins, the finder of Eddowes´dead body, testified.

-On the 12th of November 1888, the inquest into Mary Jane Kellys death commenced. On this first day of it, Thomas Bowyer, the finder of Kellys dead body, testified.

-On the 17th of July 1889, the inquest into the death of Alice MacKenzie commenced. On this first day of it, Walter Andrews, the finder of MacKenzies dead body, testified.

It was standard procedure that the people involved in finding the bodies of murder victims witnessed on the first day of the inquest. Accordingly, if it had been known on Saturday the 1:st of September 1888 that Charles Lechmere was the finder of the dead body of Polly Nichols, he would have been summoned to testify on that day together with PCs Neil and Mizen.

Since it was not known that Lechmere was the finder, PC Neil testified as the finder of the body. At this stage, Mizens role and his interaction with Lechmere and Paul was not known to the police. If it had been, he would have been called to testify on the first day of the inquest.

When Neil testified, he provided this version of the events:

Yesterday morning I was proceeding down Buck's-row, Whitechapel, going towards Brady-street. There was not a soul about. I had been round there half an hour previously, and I saw no one then. I was on the right-hand side of the street, when I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row. I went across and found deceased lying outside a gateway, her head towards the east. The gateway was closed. It was about nine or ten feet high, and led to some stables. There were houses from the gateway eastward, and the School Board school occupies the westward. On the opposite side of the road is Essex Wharf. Deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate. I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged. I felt her arm, which was quite warm from the joints upwards. Her eyes were wide open. Her bonnet was off and lying at her side, close to the left hand. I heard a constable passing Brady-street, so I called him. I did not whistle. I said to him, "Run at once for Dr. Llewellyn," and, seeing another constable in Baker's-row, I sent him for the ambulance.

The following day, Neil was put forward by his superiors to supply this story:

Police constable Neil, 79 J, who found the body, reports the time as 3.45. Buck's row is a comparatively secluded place, having tenements on one side only. There is little doubt that the constable was watched out of the street on his previous round. He has been severely questioned as to his "working" of his "beat" on that night, and states that he was last on the spot where he found the body not more than half an hour previously - that is to say, at 3.15. The "beat" is a very short one, and, quickly walked over, would not occupy more than twelve minutes. He neither heard a cry not saw a soul. Moreover, there are three watchmen on duty at night close to the spot and neither one heard a cry to cause alarm. It is not true, says Constable Neil, who is a man of nearly 20 years' service, that he was called to the body by two men. He came upon it as he walked, and, flashing his lanthorn to examine it he was answered by the lights from two other constables at either end of the street.

Here we can see that nothing has changed in Neils story. It is the same story as the one from the inquest, with the exception that he now adds that the suggestion that he would have been called to the body by two men (who were Robert Paul and an unidentified carman) is wrong. He therefore denies any knowledge about the carmen on the Sunday evening. And he is not only described as the finder of the body by the paper, he also says himself that he found the body.

The one and only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Charles Lechmere was an unknown entity to the police on the evening of Sunday the 2nd, 1888.

[Fisherman]

...there's little chance that a QC who went on record saying he would prosecute a man would retract his statement publicly.

He didn´t say that publically, though. He said that Charles Lechmere would have had a prima facie case to answer that suggested that he was the killer. Any answer that Lechmere could provide that dissolved the notion that he was the killer would then likely make Scobie NOT prosecute him.

It´s vital that we understand just how discerning James Scobie was. He was fully aware that the indications that caused him to say that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere would perhaps sound less damning if evidence to the contrary was added.

That is not to say that I think that any such evidence is at hand, but instead to point to what it was Scobie really said and meant.

[Fiver]

...and not one anti-lecher has congratulated or even mentioned Garys steller research on the pinchin/cats meat shop find. and one wonders why I im a lech apologist at best and an anti-anti-lecher? go figure.

Why are you expecting him to get praises on this site for something he only posted on another site?

[Trevor Marriott]

He didn´t say that publically, though. He said that Charles Lechmere would have had a prima facie case to answer that suggested that he was the killer. Any answer that Lechmere could provide that dissolved the notion that he was the killer would then likely make Scobie NOT prosecute him.

It´s vital that we understand just how discerning James Scobie was. He was fully aware that the indications that caused him to say that there is a prima facie case against Lechmere would perhaps sound less damning if evidence to the contrary was added.

That is not to say that I think that any such evidence is at hand, but instead to point to what it was Scobie really said and meant.

Based on not being provided with the full facts when are you going to accept that, you cannot disprove it because you had no contact with him, and you do not know what he was sent by Blink films, and furthermore you do not know what he said or what was put to him in the lost 40+ mins of his overall interview

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Based on not being provided with the full facts when are you going to accept that, you cannot disprove it because you had no contact with him, and you do not know what he was sent by Blink films, and furthermore you do not know what he said or what was put to him in the lost 40+ mins of his overall interview

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, can you not see that what I am saying is EXACTLY that he based his verdict on the accusatory evidence only? Why go on about something that we all agree on? Scobies verdict was not based on the full evidence, and it was never meant to be. And it is declared in the docu that what Scobie reviewed was the evidence AGAINST Charles Lechmere, so what´s your problem?

As for the "lost" 40 minutes of his overall interview, I saw a good deal of it. I remember Scobie reasoning a lot about how criminals sometimes believed that they could pile up any amount of coincidences without getting caught out, for example. I have mentioned this before, years ago, but you may have missed out on it.

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fish, just passing through...I won't stay long.

Accordingly, if it had been known on Saturday the 1:st of September 1888 that Charles Lechmere was the finder of the dead body of Polly Nichols, he would have been summoned to testify on that day together with PCs Neil and Mizen.

Since it was not known that Lechmere was the finder, PC Neil testified as the finder of the body. At this stage, Mizens role and his interaction with Lechmere and Paul was not known to the police. If it had been, he would have been called to testify on the first day of the inquest.

Yes, Fish, this is your interpretation, but it is child's play to come up with other and better interpretations.

The police weren't waiting until Monday to locate Cross--they were waiting to re-locate Paul. He's the one who was later dragged out of bed and didn't appear until over two weeks later.

But the show must go on, and by Monday they brought in whom they had: 'Cross' and Mizen and Tomkins & Co. It's Paul, not Cross, who in conspicuous by his absence. By your same logic, he should have been there. He wasn't---and with that, your argument goes up in smoke. So the claim that your interpretation is proven 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is clearly not true.

Lingering questions.

1. You still haven't named your source for Mizen 'formally' identifying Cross at the inquest. You now acknowledge that this is a weak argument, since it was strictly for the benefit of the jury, but I still ask again: which account of the inquest are you using for this? I'm not seeing him 'formally' identifying Cross in the Daily News, the Daily Telegraph, the ELO, The Times, etc. etc.

2. In fact, unless I've missed it, you haven't commented on The Time's coverage of the inquest mentioned in a previous post. Mizen obviously testified before Cross took the stand to give his deposition. Mizen came first. Yet Mizen repeatedly refers to the next witness as 'Cross.' Tell me again where and when he learned that this was the mysterious pedestrian's name? (ie., the name 'Cross' chose to use)? It certainly wasn't there & then in the court room.

Your claim is that it had to be after the appearance of the Lloyd's interview. Yes, he could have learned it on Sunday night (though you seem to believe he had no opportunity to identify Cross at any time before Monday) but he just as easily could have learned it on Saturday or Friday--before the Lloyd's article was published.

This seems to be another instance of people being far too easily convinced by their own interpretations, when the historical record is too vague and uncertain to place any such confidence in them.

3. P.S. Just for fun...how do you think Walter Dew knew Cross was a 'middle-aged' carman. What is his source for this? Do you think he went looking through census returns in 1938?

Best wishes,

RP

[rjpalmer]

Do we think this post is ‘doing something useful’?
Or is it ignoring my plea to keep things civil?

I have the ban hammer out, folks.

Hi JM,

Speaking of ignoring--and without naming names--in many years at this site I've never used the 'ignore' button, nor reported any poster's alleged abuse, but I thought one strategy of calming the waters would be to put someone on my ignore list, but it doesn't seem to work.

Under Settings, we are giving the following option:

"To block certain users' posts, enter their names into the ignore list. To remove users from the ignore list, click the 'x' button."

I did this. It doesn't seem to work. Is there a technical issue?

I guess I'll have to resort to the old-fashioned way of ignoring someone. Simply ignoring them.

Thanks,

RP

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, can you not see that what I am saying is EXACTLY that he based his verdict on the accusatory evidence only? Why go on about something that we all agree on? Scobies verdict was not based on the full evidence, and it was never meant to be. And it is declared in the docu that what Scobie reviewed was the evidence AGAINST Charles Lechmere, so what´s your problem?

That accusatory evidence you refer to is not even sufficinet to make him a suspect, all he did was find the body!!!!!!!!!!!!

My problem is that if he had been provided with all the facts as they are known then he could not, or would not have made those comments.

I say again it clear that Blink films did not provide him with the full facts, and now he has been made aware of what he should have been provided with I would imagine he now feels he was "done up like a kipper"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jmenges]

RJ,

I’ve passed the ignore function issue up the chain of command to Spry.
Thanks

JM

[MrBarnett]

That accusatory evidence you refer to is not even sufficinet to make him a suspect, all he did was find the body!!!!!!!!!!!!

My problem is that if he had been provided with all the facts as they are known then he could not, or would not have made those comments.

I say again it clear that Blink films did not provide him with the full facts, and now he has been made aware of what he should have been provided with I would imagine he now feels he was "done up like a kipper"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So let us in on the secret, Trevor - exactly what did you tell him?