Evidence of innocence

[Geddy2112]

“When first quizzed about the Victorian carman—big shock coming!—the descendants DENIED there was any family traditions about Lechmere. But they would, wouldn’t they? Who wants to admit their ancestor was depraved?”

”Quizzed further, and informed by Ed that he believed Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, their tongues began to loosen, and they admitted he had been known as a most violent man.”

Absolutely correct. Some family members may be proud great grand pops was the most famous serial killer of all time so they will no doubt elaborate on 'Charlie once kicked a dog because it bit him' to 'Charlie went out and savagely murdered all dogs (or TIGERS!!!) in the area because one bit him.'

You are always going to get folk who will wallow in the infamy. Of course you have Stow's missus who of course is Pro-Lechmere and by all accounts a descendant. All I know of my family form that era is that they were responsible for at least four fish and chip shops in my home town and my great great great uncle went to Aussie (or was he deported...mmm juicy gossip) to start Thooey's Brewery. Yes folks in my book four fish n chip shops and a brewery trump serial killer any day of the week!!!

But I suggest if you want to discuss this further, move it to the Lucy Letby thread, where you are also discussing Maybrick.

Oooooo behave

[rjpalmer]

Rhodes was then obliged to quiz any of his men who had worked in Dodd's house, who - big shock coming - denied everything.

What prevents Christer and Ed from telling their tale of Lechmere’s descendants in the same prejudicial way that you are doing?

“When first quizzed about the Victorian carman—big shock coming!—the descendants DENIED there was any family traditions about Lechmere. But they would, wouldn’t they? Who wants to admit their ancestor was depraved?”

”Quizzed further, and informed by Ed that he believed Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, their tongues began to loosen, and they admitted he had been known as a most violent man.”

In my view, this is all you’re doing. You’ve injected your own theory about their original lack of any relevant information, instead relying on accounts that date to when the waters were muddied by a less-than-careful interviewer.

At least Christer was savvy enough to appreciate this in the case of the Lechmere descendants.

But I suggest if you want to discuss this further, move it to the Lucy Letby thread, where you are also discussing Maybrick.

Cheers.

[Geddy2112]

My suspect is the only suspect that can be placed alone close by a freshly killed Ripper victim.

This was of course back in late 2014. However it still gets trotted out ad nauseum.

Got me thinking then I had a lie down for safety reasons...

Surely Davis, Diemschutz, Watkins and Bowyer can be placed alone close by a freshly killed Ripper Victim. Even if it is by their own admission. Does it make them less of a killer than Cross just because a third party was there to back up Cross' claim. I think not. So surely this 'placed alone...' is just utter crap.

(Although technically speaking if we are to do a Holmgren and play the 'words' game Cross was never alone with the body. He was only at the body in the company of Paul.)

[caz]

I don't know if you're misremembering what you heard or didn't hear the whole story, but a year or two ago Christer Holmgren gave a very different account of this on JTR Forums, casting this claim in a very different light:

"As the Missing Evidence was being shot, Edward Stow sat on information that family lore had it that Charles Lechmere was a very violent man. If I recall correctly, the source was a man called Dennis Lechmere.

"However, before Dennis Lechmere offered this information, Edward had asked him and the rest of the Lechmeres at a gathering if anybody of them could provide any stories about the carman, what he was like and how he treated people. The answer was a unanimous "no".

"Then Edward informed them that he was presuming that Charles Lechmere was actually Jack the Ripper, and having been given this information, Dennis (?) Lechmere changed his story and said that he now remembered that there had been stories about the bad and violent nature of the carman."

--Christer Holmgren, 'Inside Buck's Row Third Edition'-- JTR Forums, Post #36.

I remembered this post very well because it reminded me of the Maybrick Diary fiasco. The electricians who had worked on Maybrick's old house in 1992 were originally quizzed by their boss and they told him that nothing unusual had happened and nothing had been found. Requestioned by Paul Feldman --a London video maker who was producing a film on 'Jack the Ripper' --one of the men now claimed that a book had been found during the work and (supposedly) offered his willingness to admit it on camera if Feldman greased his palm with silver. Other electricians subsequently recaptured vague memories of hearing about a book being found or a biscuit tin, etc. and this has now become the preferred provenance of the diary's supporters.

To his credit, it seems pretty obvious that Ed is admitting that Dennis Lechmere's claim could not be used in the 'Missing Evidence' episode because it was untrustworthy--just someone out for his proverbial 15 minutes of fame.

It's not much good tucking away misinformation about the 'Maybrick Diary fiasco' on a Lechmere thread and hoping it won't be picked up and corrected, if the aim is to correct a Lechmere-related misunderstanding and give credit to Ed Butler of all people in the process. He would love to have used that claim but was smart enough to appreciate how it could backfire on him in the circs.

The first Colin Rhodes knew about Feldman's suspicions was in April 1993, when he requested and was supplied with contact details for some - but not all - of the electricians who were in Rhodes's employ before Mike Barrett's diary emerged. Feldman immediately began phoning the numbers he was given, but it wasn't just one of his contacts who claimed to know something about it. Unless the first one on the list had had the presence of mind - and had thought it a good idea - following Feldman's call, to alert his mates to what was going on and what the story was, before Feldman had a chance to dial the next number, nobody would have had their own side of the story to add if there was no story, and it would have been down to the one opportunist, with the other electricians all shaking their heads in the beginning, having no clue what Feldman was on about. How were they all so well rehearsed?

Once Feldman had unleashed the beast and the newspapers got wind of it, Rhodes was then obliged to quiz any of his men who had worked in Dodd's house, who - big shock coming - denied everything. Fancy that. However, the beast wouldn't be silenced for long and the stories kept coming, from electricians and other witnesses, who didn't know Feldman from a bar of soap and had had no contact with him or from him, to Paul Dodd himself, who was visited later in 1993 by one worried electrician, for the purpose of denying that he had personally taken anything and naming two others [who had worked with him in the house on 9th March 1992] who allegedly knew about it. Everyone appeared willing to throw the name of Eddie Lyons about, so was it one giant scapegoating conspiracy, involving an assorted and disparate bunch of liars and con artists, who never gained a penny and didn't even know all their fellow conspirators, let alone what some of them would go on to claim in their police statements in October 1993, or tell various researchers between then and now? What did they all have against Eddie, if he was more sinned against than sinning? Or is there another, more rational but less palatable explanation for those who prefer to believe the liar and con artist who claimed the diary was in his own wife's handwriting, when she committed the ultimate sin of divorcing him and not letting him see his only daughter again?

Back to the Lechmere fiasco... any responses on the diary fiasco can be directed to a more appropriate thread.

[Geddy2112]

Personally, I can't imagine him plagiarising and my bet is his denial of knowing what Scooby was given will be couched in semantics - "I gave the documentary makers a bunch of stuff, but I don't know what they selected from that to give Scooby" type of thing; playing word games, much like the Cross/Lechmere theory is more about making word play than making fact based inferences.

No I doubt he would plagiarise, especially after his mates claims regarding Trevor (another scandal I missed... grr.) I absolutely do not believe him that he had no idea directly or indirectly what Scobie Doo was given. How would he then be confident (since he claims to not have seen the Scobie stuff prior to release, even though it's on the video him watching it ) that he would give the 'verdict' he was after to push his theory? Holmgren twists the English language to near 'Breaking Point' as Orsam said and it's true but the folk with some intellect can see through this charade, and see it for what it is... erm fibs. He challenged people to find lies in his book, I found 12 without trying, of course the but but but came out in defence.

I think it was Patrick S who posted what he really thought about Holmgren and it's rather spot on...

[Geddy2112]

Hmm, on more important matters, I think you're right that it was Quincy, MD. And in the show I believe he was never referred to as "Dr. Quincy", just Quincy (unless it is in some obscure episode of course; my ability to get pedantic about Quincy is not as well honed. ).

It appears he was an M.E. which is probably examiner... the blood thickens... or the plot or the clot...

[JeffHamm]

Interesting point to add, and it's difficult on the low quality YouTube version of the missing evidence if you pause the booklet given to Scobie you can see most of the first paragraph which is nearly word for word what Holmgren puts in his book. I understand the book came after the fakeumentary but I presume the book was WIP when the video comes out. What I'm suggesting, and it's only a suggestion is I find it hard to believe a Blink Films researcher managed to use the neigh on exact wording, missing out the 'about' etc that eventually ending up in Cutting Point. Coincidence?

I suppose it's either the case Fisherman provided the information that eventually went to Scooby despite his denial of that, or he obtained it and plagiarised it for his book - which means he either has to retract his claim he didn't know what Scooby was given, or he has to explain the uncanny similarity. He's caught on the horns of a dilemma there. Personally, I can't imagine him plagiarising and my bet is his denial of knowing what Scooby was given will be couched in semantics - "I gave the documentary makers a bunch of stuff, but I don't know what they selected from that to give Scooby" type of thing; playing word games, much like the Cross/Lechmere theory is more about making word play than making fact based inferences.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, I was in no way belittling the PhD. Of course not. I was merely suggesting her PhD was probably nothing to do with the position of Head Teacher. In fact I know it was not. My daughter in the process of getting a PhD and I've told her I'll never refer to her as a Doctor. She got a little shirty but I explained there are better reasons to want a PhD than to be called Doctor. I might call her Dr on her graduation and that's that... hehe
You are correct with MD, in fact I'm sure Quincy is referred to as MD and yes when I went for a back exam with a surgeon I referred to him as Dr and he said I'm a Mr not a Dr. You can't win haha.

My mother, bless her always wanted to get me a brass plaque with my 'letters' on but I refused and to this day some 30 odd years later I've never used them in that context or had them as part of my signature on letters etc.

I figured you were being a bit "tongue in cheek", and I admit, I sort of used it as an opportunity to delve into the pedantics about the "Dr." title because it amuses me. ha ha. And congratulations to your daughter. As I'm sure you are aware, it is a lot of work. Her response to the "not calling you Dr." reminds me of friends of mine who were also working on their PhD's at the time I was (many years ago now, though it seems like yesterday). One of their first items on their "to do" list when the finished was to have their names changed on their credit cards to include "Dr.". They figured after all the debt they wracked up on it, it was a way of getting something in return! ha ha

Hmm, on more important matters, I think you're right that it was Quincy, MD. And in the show I believe he was never referred to as "Dr. Quincy", just Quincy (unless it is in some obscure episode of course; my ability to get pedantic about Quincy is not as well honed. ).

Anyway, like you, I've never had "Dr." put on anything outside of formal work things. I even ask the travel agents not to use it when booking me flights because airlines want to know who can help a passenger should they have a medical emergency, not who can help a passenger peer review a draft of their article! Now, should the pilots start making announcements for the latter on a regular basis I may rethink that, but I'm not holding my breath.

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

Mind you, if my last name were Quincy, I would probably insist on it being used, and might also request a few bars of the theme song go with it! ha ha

Hi Jeff, I was in no way belittling the PhD. Of course not. I was merely suggesting her PhD was probably nothing to do with the position of Head Teacher. In fact I know it was not. My daughter in the process of getting a PhD and I've told her I'll never refer to her as a Doctor. She got a little shirty but I explained there are better reasons to want a PhD than to be called Doctor. I might call her Dr on her graduation and that's that... hehe
You are correct with MD, in fact I'm sure Quincy is referred to as MD and yes when I went for a back exam with a surgeon I referred to him as Dr and he said I'm a Mr not a Dr. You can't win haha.

My mother, bless her always wanted to get me a brass plaque with my 'letters' on but I refused and to this day some 30 odd years later I've never used them in that context or had them as part of my signature on letters etc.

[Geddy2112]

We know that this wasn’t the case though because Scobie had been misinformed. So when we remove the invented gap there’s simply nothing left.

Interesting point to add, and it's difficult on the low quality YouTube version of the missing evidence if you pause the booklet given to Scobie you can see most of the first paragraph which is nearly word for word what Holmgren puts in his book. I understand the book came after the fakeumentary but I presume the book was WIP when the video comes out. What I'm suggesting, and it's only a suggestion is I find it hard to believe a Blink Films researcher managed to use the neigh on exact wording, missing out the 'about' etc that eventually ending up in Cutting Point. Coincidence?

[JeffHamm]

Side bar... I worked at a school many many moons ago for a short while and the Head was one of those who demanded to be referred to as Dr. Of course she was not a medical doctor just had a P.hD. Probably in something random. Unfortunately her surname was Quincy and did not like me 'doing the theme' tune every time I walked past...

Strictly speaking, Dr. was the title given to someone with a PhD, but is granted to those of the medical profession out of curtesy due to the name of the profession also being "doctor". I think the the "official title" is MD, or medical doctor, to indicate they haven't done a "doctorate", so they're an MD doctor not a Dr doctor. Initially, surgeons would go by Mr. rather than Dr, as doctor with reference to medicine was considered "lower" as it tended to come from the background of the "doctor/barber" rather than those with "proper" medical training. I believe that, at least until not too long ago at least, this was still the case in the UK? Maybe it's changed now. Regardless, for quite some time the common usage of Dr. as a title for a medical professional (for an MD) has become the expected meaning of the title, but that conflates the title Dr. with the name of the occupation of being a "doctor", while the original intention of Dr. as a title was to indicate one had a PhD - a "doctorate of philosophy" in a given field.

So, to say she "just had a PhD", is a bit unfair. It's the actual thing you have to do to be properly awarded the title of "Dr.". Mind you, I've always found it a bit pretentious for people to insist on being called "Dr". I've got a PhD, but I tell my students to just call me Jeff, unless they are uncomfortable with calling their lecturer by the their first name. So, if that's a problem, they can call me Dr. Hamm, or Mr. Hamm, I'm not fussed, whatever works to make them comfortable enough to ask me a question when they don't understand something. Still, a PhD is a lot of work in any field, and it's not wrong for someone to ask for the title they've earned to be recognized even if my own preferences are otherwise. We're all different.

Mind you, if my last name were Quincy, I would probably insist on it being used, and might also request a few bars of the theme song go with it! ha ha

- Jeff

[Geddy2112]

If The Baron is accurately quoting Fisherman here, I find this statement concerning. Fisherman is saying that Cross is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning that if a case with this evidence came to a jury that he was on, he would be in favor of convicting. It makes me wonder how many other people out there that serve on juries would favor convicting on the basis of evidence as weak as the evidence against Cross. If there are many of them, then there must be a lot of innocent people being convicted. We know there's a significant number of them anyway, but maybe the number is higher than we think.

Well he says it in a few roundabout ways in the Video, but of course he had no control over the video.... pfff. Great point though. You only have to look at Stow's YouTube account, the vast majority are completely convinced and of course then go one step further to stroke the ego.

Ironically if you Google 'The internet has given a voice to people who would have been considered the village idiot' I think the second answer down gives a link to a Reddit page where the second comment is 'A cursory glance at any YouTube comments section would confirm this as fact.'

What do some folk say? 'I weep for the future...'

[Geddy2112]

Are you saying that even Quincy couldn’t have done it Jeff?

Side bar... I worked at a school many many moons ago for a short while and the Head was one of those who demanded to be referred to as Dr. Of course she was not a medical doctor just had a P.hD. Probably in something random. Unfortunately her surname was Quincy and did not like me 'doing the theme' tune every time I walked past...

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hope that you're right.

It wouldn’t even go to court Louis. The CPS would be annoyed at the waste of their time. The only reason that Scobie felt that there was a case to answer was because he was provided with ‘evidence’ that ‘proved’ that Cross must have been in Bucks Row earlier than he’d stated (which, if true, would set off alarm bills for anyone) We know that this wasn’t the case though because Scobie had been misinformed. So when we remove the invented gap there’s simply nothing left.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh, let's not go that far! ha ha!

But seriously, while anything is possible in creative writing, if one wants to apply science to the real world then we are limited by how things actually work, and that includes the variability associated with our measurements and also the influence of "unknown variables" (things we didn't realize were important).

Equations produce exact values, because that's how math works, but the connection between the output of an equation based upon a real world measurement value and the true value of what the equation estimates will have variation in how closely they correspond, because that's how science works. The goal of research is to try and account for more and more of that variation, resulting in a closer and closer correspondence between the estimated value (like the estimated ToD) and the true value (like the actual ToD). To do that, we generally need more and more complex equations, that require more reliable measurements and generally a larger collection of measurements (i.e. not just body temperature, but environmental temperature, so two values go into our equation - maybe victim's body mass needs to be include to improve that reliability, and so forth).

The number of things that influence body cooling post-mortem are large. One source of variation is the fact that people's starting temperature is not the same. Some people have higher internal body temperatures than others, and that information is not available in estimating the ToD of a murder victim. So two bodies can be found with the same internal body temperature, but if one victim's living temperature is a degree higher than the other, that means that victim has been dead longer. The other complications is that, for reasons unknown, sometimes the internal body temperature can rise before it starts to fall, and so that could result in a fairly large underestimation of how long they have been dead.

And all of these complications require that you use internal body temperatures (touching the body surface is not reliable at all; we even see the doctor's saying that some parts might be cold, like the face and hands, while others can be warm, the upper arms - which do you use?) and even then the estimated value from the equations will have a range of error with regards to the true time of death that spans hours - even under the best conditions! (one of those best conditions is that the body is intact!).

The JtR crimes are very much a worst case scenerio even today, so while it's hard to accept, the doctors at the time, using the best knowledge of the day, simply cannot provide an estimate that should be viewed as reliable beyond within a few hours. Given the estimates for Stride and Eddowes do correspond to the other evidence, I rather suspect the doctors were factoring that in and so their estimated ToDs should be viewed as confirming that the medical evidence was consistent with what that other evidence pointed to. (We should note we see the doctors doing this in the McKenzie case, I believe, where the opinion is stated as "Based purely on the medical information I don't think she was killed by JtR, but if other evidence were to contradict that, I wouldn't object" (not the exact words, but I think that captures the intent - that if the doctor were to factor in other information that might be forth coming, they would change their opinion).

- Jeff

And that’s the only way that we can look at it Jeff. The problem that we find is that we get questions like “how come x was the case with Chapman and yet y was the case with Eddowes?” and “if Doctor’s were so unreliable on ToD estimation how come they got Stride and Eddowes right?” In situations where science is involved we have to avoid using intuition; the feeling that something “sounds right,” or “doesn’t sound right.” We hear people say “well it stands to reason that…” but that’s not how science works unless you have the scientific knowledge required to make those statements. You hear it when people are ill and they say that “it makes sense that if x helps with that ailment then it will surely help with this one.”

I think that its also our instinct to defend a medical expert out of respect for the profession even though, quite clearly, no one is questioning Dr. Phillips competence, even if we question his conclusion. If modern day experts tell us that the methods of ToD estimation used by a Victorian Doctor were unreliable then we can take that to the bank. Some do get a little ‘warm’ if it’s suggested that a Doctor might alter his ToD estimation due to witness evidence but this has definitely occurred. David Barrat found at least two examples of this occurring in his research for his book The Temperature Of Death.

Even without the three witnesses we would have to exercise caution over Phillips ToD estimates. Add those witnesses and we get a different picture.