Evidence of innocence

[Trevor Marriott]

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

No secret, I have nothing to hide

I told him all the facts along with the evidence that shows Lechmere was an innocent man, facts and evidence Blink films failed to provide him with in order for him to make an unbiased opinion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

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.

Fish, this will be my last reference to James Scobie, Q.C. Carry on without me.

Strange to say, judging by recent comments, I honestly think I have a higher opinion of Scobie's abilities and discernment than nearly everyone here, with the possible exception of you.

What you say is true. He is one of the top QC's in London and he is highly intelligent and he knows criminal law like the back of his hand. He is a better judge of what will 'work' in a court room and what constitutes evidence in a criminal trial than anyone here will ever know.

It's all true.

Alas, that is precisely why I am skeptical that it was simply a matter of Scobie being 'fooled' by the outline of the case against Lechmere that he was given by the makers of the documentary. That would be 'beyond the beyonds.'

Scobie must appreciate more than anyone that weak cases can be 'got up' by a prosecutor. It's his bread & butter. He lives and breathes this stuff. It's what pays his light bills.

It would be utterly naïve to think that it wouldn't have crossed his mind that a film maker was handing him an exaggerated case against a pet suspect. Has a criminal lawyer never seen a crime documentary in his life, and wouldn't be aware of how it generally 'works'? No way.

This will probably infuriate you, but there is such a thing as 'being a good sport.' And I think this explains Darryl's observation that experts brought in by Ripperologists always seem to agree with the views of their clients. Martin Fido noticed the same tendency during the Maybrick Diary fiasco, but there was one exception. Dr. Baxendale. He definitely told his clients something they didn't want to hear, and ultimately his opinion was placed in a bottom desk drawer and didn't see the light of day until someone else chased it down.

This is not really about 'integrity.' In my opinion, it's about an expert having the very human tendency to be a good sport and give his client something they can use. That, coupled with the tendency of the theorist to misinterpret what the expert really said and thought.

Scobie is far from stupid. He must have known the case against Lechmere was weak, and I have no doubt he would have just as eagerly defended him as prosecuted him. But he's being optimistic for the benefit of the cameras---people often are. Even people with great integrity can be lured into saying something a little over-the-top for the benefit of a television audience.

Any circumspect commentary would have been left on the cutting room floor by the filmmakers. Of that I'm certain.

You won't agree and others here will conclude that Scobie was merely fooled, but I don't see it that way. It's my opinion, and of course you don't need to share it.

Best wishes.

[MrBarnett]

No secret, I have nothing to hide

I told him all the facts along with the evidence that shows Lechmere was an innocent man, facts and evidence Blink films failed to provide him with in order for him to make an unbiased opinion

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But there is no evidence that shows Lechmere was an innocent man. Which does you up like a kipper - bang to rights, guv!

[Fisherman]

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



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.

They did not know the name Cross until the carman surfaced, R J. That´s the implications. The one and only person they tried to locate was Paul and that was only because Lechmere surfaced.

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.

Yes indeed, Paul was the more conspicious one - after Lechmere had surfaced. Before it, the police did not believe in his story.

By your same logic, he should have been there.

Yes, he should, since Lechmere came forward and verified the story. But at that stage or close in time afterwards, Paul had made himself unavailable, and you cannot bring people whose whereabouts you do not know to an inquest, can you?

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.

No, the fact that Paul was not there is simple enough to explain: He kept himself away after the second inquest day and before it, he was not sought for. And yes, it is beyond reasonable doubt that Lechmere only came forward late in the process, after the evening of the 2nd.

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.

I have made no acknowledgement at all, R J, that was something you just made up. Mizen was asked to identify him and did so. That is a formality, not a funny idea someone got.

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.

No, it was not. There is a report that speaks of Mizen as a man "who now knew the mans name to be Cross", and so he was informed about it before the inquest. Sadly, that does not mean that it happened two days before it, but instead likely in combination with the inquest, which was why the paper said that he NOW knew the name - he had not done so before the inquest, see.

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)

Seem to beleive? The fact that he did it at the inquest tells the story. If it had been done before, what need was there to do so at the inquest? For the benefit of the coroner and the jury who distrusted an earlier identification? I don´t think so.

but he just as easily could have learned it on Saturday or Friday--before the Lloyd's article was published.

No, because before the article was published, the police and Neil still said that Neil was the finder.

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.

No, it´s more like an instance where a poster tries to make people believe that the historical records are "vague" when they are in fact quite clear enough to put the errand beyond reasonable doubt.

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

He could have been at the inquest or been told by anyone who was - or he could have concluded it from the fact that Lechmere told the whole world that he had worked for Pickfords for over twenty years.
Take your pick, but don´t speak about me concluding too much from vague historical records if that is the level of reasoning you are going to employ.

[Trevor Marriott]

But there is no evidence that shows Lechmere was an innocent man. Which does you up like a kipper - bang to rights, guv!

I dont need to prove his innocenve the facts as we know them negate what you and Fish rely gto prove his guilt, so thats enough proof

The burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Have you and fish been able to prove that? No, you havent even got near

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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

Then why did Scobie say that he was a man who acted suspiciously? And how could he conclude that htere IS a prima facie case against Lechmere - if you disagree? Is that not odd? Surely, you are the better suited man to decide such a thing?

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.

No, your problem is that you claim this without knowing it. I feel pretty confident that regardless if Scobie was provided with all the facts, he would have made the exact same call. However, we cannot know this. What we CAN see is that the one piece of evidence against guilt most often aired out here, many times by yourself, the "fact" that Lechmere would have run, was something thet Scobie will have known about - and rejected.

I say again it clear that Blink films did not provide him with the full facts,

And I say again that we have all known this for seven years now. And that it would be nice if you finally realized that.

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

Who made him aware of it? Where is the evidence? And your take on things is your take only, you have no idea at all what Scobie thinks of his verdict. But we can all be sure that he DID conclude that tehre was a prima facie case against the carman suggesting that he was the killer. And even if you couold provide strong evidence to the contrary, that would not make his original verdict wrong, it would only provide a backdrop that told us and Scobie that IN SPITE OF how the accusatory evidence suggests that he is guilty, he was actually not.
Then again, we all know that you can NOT supply any strong evidence for the carmans innocence.

[Trevor Marriott]

He could have been at the inquest or been told by anyone who was - or he could have concluded it from the fact that Lechmere told the whole world that he had worked for Pickfords for over twenty years.
Take your pick, but don´t speak about me concluding too much from vague historical records if that is the level of reasoning you are going to employ.

You also keep relying heavily on newspaper reports, but you should know they are secondary evidence and are unsafe to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Who made him aware of it? Where is the evidence? And your take on things is your take only, you have no idea at all what Scobie thinks of his verdict. But we can all be sure that he DID conclude that tehre was a prima facie case against the carman suggesting that he was the killer. And even if you couold provide strong evidence to the contrary, that would not make his original verdict wrong, it would only provide a backdrop that told us and Scobie that IN SPITE OF how the accusatory evidence suggests that he is guilty, he was actually not.
Then again, we all know that you can NOT supply any strong evidence for the carmans innocence.

You have lost the plot now. there is no point in continuing this topic with you and I would advise others to do the same.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You also keep relying heavily on newspaper reports, but you should know they are secondary evidence and are unsafe to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you are saying that Dew would never conclude that Lechmere was middle-aged since he would not trust the parpers when they reported that Lechmere had worked at Pickfords for twenty years plus...?

There are some real fresh new approaches to reasoning logically out here, I´ll say that much.

[Fisherman]

You have lost the plot now. there is no point in continuing this topic with you and I would advise others to do the same.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nobody would be happer than me if you finally dropped this nonsense, Trevor.

[Fisherman]

I dont need to prove his innocenve the facts as we know them negate what you and Fish rely gto prove his guilt, so thats enough proof

The burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Have you and fish been able to prove that? No, you havent even got near

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you mean that we have not convinced everybody who reads the theory that Lechmere was guilty, then you are correct.

If you are denying that many people who have read the theory have been convinced, then you are wrong.

We are not in a court of law here, Trevor. And to be fair, Mr Barnett has not spent all that much time trying to convince people that Lechmere was the killer, has he?

Wait and see.

[MrBarnett]

I dont need to prove his innocenve the facts as we know them negate what you and Fish rely gto prove his guilt, so thats enough proof

The burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Have you and fish been able to prove that? No, you havent even got near

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A few posts ago you said you provided Scoobie with the evidence that Lechmere was innocent. You can’t have done because their isn’t any.

What’s going on?

[rjpalmer]

This isn't really going anywhere, Fish, which is a pity, but not unexpected. We will agree to disagree, but why are you so hesitant to name your sources? I'm merely curious. I asked with civility--twice--where you are came up with the concept that Mizen was asked to identify Cross at the inquest. I am not trying to be tricky; I assume you have one. It's just that I've read multiple inquest reports multiple times and I am not seeing where you came up with this notion. And, as I said, Mizen mentions Cross by name at least three time before Cross's deposition was even put into evidence. That tells us that he was aware of Cross's identity on some level, but leaves us with no clue as to where and when he learned it.

He could have been at the inquest or been told by anyone who was - or he could have concluded it from the fact that Lechmere told the whole world that he had worked for Pickfords for over twenty years.

Gimme a break, old man. Dew is writing in 1938 and he remembers how long one witness worked for a company in a case that featured eleven different murders and inquests, most of them with multiple sessions, and dozens and dozens of witnesses? All of this after 50 years, with the contemporary reports giving no hint that 'Cross' ever stated his age? I don't buy it.

I think it is highly probable that Dew was one of the young 'lowly' Detective Constables tasked with chasing down Paul--he certainly remembers the supposedly futile search-- and, as such, he had talked to Cross and had met him and remembered him. That is the 'organic,' and simplest explanation. Why this possibility alarms you, I cannot fathom, but clearly you shrink from it as if it is a dreaded enemy.

Anyway, have fun with it. I'm off to greener pastures, but will make a contribution to Lechmere Studies early next week, at which time you and Gary are welcome to try and rip it to shreds. Cheers, RP

[rjpalmer]

One shot across the bow as I sail away

So you are saying that Dew would never conclude that Lechmere was middle-aged since he would not trust the parpers when they reported that Lechmere had worked at Pickfords for twenty years plus...?

There are some real fresh new approaches to reasoning logically out here, I´ll say that much.

Dew got his information by digging through old stacks of newspapers at the British Museum in 1938? Not one iota of it came from his documented time in H-Divison? Do I have this right?

Yet Dew didn't notice when reading those newspapers that Robert Paul came forward and eventually appeared at the inquest? And saw the name 'Charles Cross' but for some unfathomable reason only referred to him as Charles------ in his memoirs?

The middle-aged man was long dead and Dew didn't say anything inaccurate or untoward about him. Why not use his full surname as he did with Mortimore and Richardson and others?

I think Dew is mainly going by memory. That much is obvious. His memoirs have the mistakes of memory, but also sometimes the accuracies of memory. There is no great conspiracy or mystery.

[MrBarnett]

This isn't really going anywhere, Fish, which is a pity, but not unexpected. We will agree to disagree, but why are you so hesitant to name your sources? I'm merely curious. I asked with civility--twice--where you are came up with the concept that Mizen was asked to identify Cross at the inquest. I am not trying to be tricky; I assume you have one. It's just that I've read multiple inquest reports multiple times and I am not seeing where you came up with this notion. And, as I said, Mizen mentions Cross by name at least three time before Cross's deposition was even put into evidence. That tells us that he was aware of Cross's identity on some level, but leaves us with no clue as to where and when he learned it.




Gimme a break, old man. Dew is writing in 1938 and he remembers how long one witness worked for a company in a case that featured eleven different murders and inquests, most of them with multiple sessions, and dozens and dozens of witnesses? All of this after 50 years, with the contemporary reports giving no hint that 'Cross' ever stated his age? I don't buy it.

I think it is highly probable that Dew was one of the young 'lowly' Detective Constables tasked with chasing down Paul--he certainly remembers the supposedly futile search-- and, as such, he had talked to Cross and had met him and remembered him. That is the 'organic,' and simplest explanation. Why this possibility alarms you, I cannot fathom, but clearly you shrink from it as if it is a dreaded enemy.

Anyway, have fun with it. I'm off to greener pastures, but will make a contribution to Lechmere Studies early next week, at which time you and Gary are welcome to try and rip it to shreds. Cheers, RP

I’m looking forward to your contribution to Lechmere Studies, RP. My efforts in that respect have tended to make me more suspicious of him. Perhaps you’ll unearth Trevor’s secret stash of exculpatory evidence.