Evidence of innocence

[The Baron]

To me, it's somewhat of a red herring to bang on about 3.30 vs. 'about 3.30' because (other than the important caveat I already mentioned about miscalculations) it's not the real flaw in Christer's thinking. If Lechmere left at 3.25 or 3.30 or 3.35, and took 7 1/2 minutes to walk to Buck's Row, he still would have had enough time to murder Nichols before Paul's arrival

Yep, well said!



The Baron

[The Baron]

re the apron-I think the thought about him wearing the apron in court and not dressing up, is because he didnt want people to know why he was dressing up that day-ie going to court. he didnt want people knowing he was going to court.

mmmm

And a good post of Abby.

He didn't give his Lechmere name, he didn't dress up for the inquest, and possibly tried to hide his address, those things taken together can point to a Lechmere who didn't want to draw people attention, something a serial killer would certainly need to avoid, but doesn't mean of course he must have ben one.

It is getting realy interesting!


The Baron

[Geddy2112]

Hi RJ, hope you are well...

Hi Geddy/Herlock - I doubt I will convince you, but here goes anyway.

Going from memory, I don't think Christer had anything to do with the notes given to James Scobie, QC. Weren't those notes actually something cobbled together by the producer/writer of the show, and thus outside of Christer's control?

Well if they were that makes it even more remarkable that an independent person(s) would make exactly the same mistake. Like I said this is not an error this is something he has done five times now and it took Herlock Sholmes 22 pages of forums questions to quiz him on it and he still dodged it like he was in the Matrix.

You put me in an awkward position, because although I share your scepticism of the Lechmere theory, I felt obliged to defend Christer's integrity. I've crossed swords with him on several occasions, but he never struck me as dishonest or deliberately deceptive.

Rather, my own impression is that he believes everything he writes and that he's open and willing to discuss and defend every detail of it. That's not the attitude of someone who is deliberately deceptive.

To me if he was not deliberately deceptive he would not give 500 wordy replies to questions that require a simple yes/no. You are absolutely correct he does believe everything he writes to the hilt, and while he says he is open to discussion and welcomes objections to his theory we still get statements like yesterday from him and Edward as - 'anti-lechmerians have brought nothing new to the table in over 12 years, all their objections have been debunked.'

That does not sound like he welcomes discussions. What he does welcome is people asking X Y or Z and then accepting it and pampering to the 'oh thanks for explaining it to me crowd' as soon as he is challenged the, like I say wordy replies and dodging comes out. He has shown this 100s of times here and elsewhere. In my career I was (retired) a 'behaviour expert' there are other words for it but I like to keep it simple. In other words I had to learn quickly how to spot patterns of behaviour either in person, over a telephone or even the typed word. To that end I think Christer does not 'wish' to be deceptive however he is and his ego, arrogance, stubbornness and narcissism will not allow him to back down. Even if you had him banged to rights, and many people have many times he will never ever give up and then worse he will twist it to the other person being wrong. I could go all psychoanalyse on him and I'm very qualified to do so but to say if he was having these online conversations in one of my local pubs he would be asked to 'pick a window.'

It might strike you as fantastical or unbelievable that a person could forget to say 'about 3.30' instead of '3.30' on more than one occasion, but my impression is that Christer has so utterly convinced himself that his thinking is correct that he has also convinced himself that the difference between the two is academic and has no real bearing on the alleged "missing time." Not to put words in his mouth, but I think he sees it as so insignificant that it is easily forgotten. Since he's apologized for it, I'm willing to take his word that it merely slipped his mind.

Very generous of you. However my slant on that would be the 'about' is one of the cornerstones of his theory and to let it go would mean he maybe has to let the blood evidence go, the Mizen scam go and then he is left with what is really left - nothing. An example if I may -

"Cross, carman, said he had been in the employment of Messrs. Pickford and Co. for over twenty years. About half-past three on Friday he left his home to go to work, and he passed through Buck's-row. He discerned on the opposite side something lying against the gateway, but he could not at once make out what it was. He thought it was a tarpaulin sheet. He walked into the middle of the road, and saw that it was the figure of a woman. He then heard the footsteps of a man going up Buck's-row, about forty yards away, in the direction that he himself had come from. When he came up witness said to him, "Come and look over here; there is a woman lying on the pavement." They both crossed over to the body, and witness took hold of the woman's hands, which were cold and limp."

This was a quote from Christer in 2008, when he was anti-Lechmere, he is using the version of Lechmere's testimony from this site. Hey that is fine, after all this is supposedly a top site for all things Ripper.

Now after the middle (?) of 2012 he goes with the version which follows on 'The other man suggested that they should "shift her" - meaning in the witness's opinion that they should seat her upright. The witness replied, "I am not going to touch her."

Why because his original gambit (If you read on) tells the story as Lechmere wanting to do the propping and Paul refusing, the latter of course has Lechmere doing the refusing thus for some bizarre reason making him look guilty of murder. Why has he changed his mind, of course because the second version suits his narrative.

So, in making his calculations for the Missing Evidence episode, 3.30 was the best reference point available to Christer. In timing the walk from Doveton to Buck's Row to see if Lechmere's account held water, he had to come up with some starting point, so 3.30 (Lechmere's own estimate) was the one he used, and Christer obviously believed that this was the correct way to go about it.

To me, it's somewhat of a red herring to bang on about 3.30 vs. 'about 3.30' because (other than the important caveat I already mentioned about miscalculations) it's not the real flaw in Christer's thinking. If Lechmere left at 3.25 or 3.30 or 3.35, and took 7 1/2 minutes to walk to Buck's Row, he still would have had enough time to murder Nichols before Paul's arrival, provided she was standing there waiting for him. (Which in itself is highly dubious)

It's just odd this mistake, which he claims is not a mistake it's rather him forgetting to add it in goes in favour of a guilty Lechmere. Why do these misquotes, mistakes, forgetfulness never add bias towards innocence. What did Scobie Doo say? When the coincidences mount up etc... well they certainly do here and the forum posters would not like it. Do you honestly think Scobie would have believed in the gap if Christer put the about it and did not rely on 'many independent data' being two people instead of what most people think is five?

The real flaw (as I see it) is that Christer puts an irrational faith in Robert Paul's account, even though Paul's account disagrees with four other witnesses, and on the face of it is ludicrous.

Absolutely. Let's believe someone who is apparently 'anti-police' over there serving Policemen. I know the Police are not without reproach and it appears Mizen has dropped the ball here but really three to one?
Have a great weekend...

[rjpalmer]

Have a great weekend...

Same to you, Geddy. I'll catch you on the side.

[Geddy2112]

Same to you, Geddy. I'll catch you on the side.

Thank you. Forgot to add no doubt Christer is a decent bloke when talking non Ripper or maybe even non Lechmere, if it was possible to do such a thing. I doubt it but maybe just maybe it's possible. So I'm a sea angler (when fit) so no doubt could have a great conversation with him regarding fishing or the likes. I guess if you stop clear of the 'L' word you might see a surprisingly nice side of him, Jekyll & Hyde eh... oh wasn't that out in 1888?

[Lewis C]

On one hand, I'm not concerned with Christer failing to say "about", because all times given in this case should be understood to be approximations, so "3:30" should be understood to mean "about 3:30". On the other hand, it's hard to argue a time gap if all times are approximations, and as I understand Christer's recent blood arguments, they also assume that given times are precise.

Christer might not have given Scobie the notes, but if the notes came from the writer/producer of the show, that would mean that the notes came from the writer/producer of a biased, non-objective documentary, with the result still being that Scobie would have been given bad information.

[Geddy2112]

On one hand, I'm not concerned with Christer failing to say "about", because all times given in this case should be understood to be approximations, so "3:30" should be understood to mean "about 3:30". On the other hand, it's hard to argue a time gap if all times are approximations, and as I understand Christer's recent blood arguments, they also assume that given times are precise.

Christer might not have given Scobie the notes, but if the notes came from the writer/producer of the show, that would mean that the notes came from the writer/producer of a biased, non-objective documentary, with the result still being that Scobie would have been given bad information.

Hi Lewis C, to people who know the case I completely agree, however this video through it's distribution is probably the most watched Ripper documentary so to the untrained eye it's very compelling and believable. You just have to read the YouTube comments about how convinced they now are and how it's been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the newest breed of future Ripperoligists out there who now know not to bother because it's been solved. It's a sad state of affairs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

mmmm

And a good post of Abby.

He didn't give his Lechmere name, he didn't dress up for the inquest, and possibly tried to hide his address, those things taken together can point to a Lechmere who didn't want to draw people attention, something a serial killer would certainly need to avoid, but doesn't mean of course he must have ben one.

It is getting realy interesting!


The Baron

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis C, to people who know the case I completely agree, however this video through it's distribution is probably the most watched Ripper documentary so to the untrained eye it's very compelling and believable. You just have to read the YouTube comments about how convinced they now are and how it's been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the newest breed of future Ripperoligists out there who now know not to bother because it's been solved. It's a sad state of affairs.

Hi Geddy,

Yes, I saw the video before I knew much about the case, and I must admit that I found it convincing at the time. Steve Blomer's video on Richard Jones' Youtube channel was very helpful in showing me the flaws in the case against Cross.

[drstrange169]

"... I don't think Christer had anything to do with the notes given to James Scobie, QC. Weren't those notes actually something cobbled together by the producer/writer of the show, and thus outside of Christer's control?"

The voice over in the TV show says Scobie's opinion was based on, "the evidence drawn together by Christer".

[Geddy2112]

"... I don't think Christer had anything to do with the notes given to James Scobie, QC. Weren't those notes actually something cobbled together by the producer/writer of the show, and thus outside of Christer's control?"

The voice over in the TV show says Scobie's opinion was based on, "the evidence drawn together by Christer".

Oh yes so it does, however the narrator does not say many true things in that video, so in all fairness this might be another fib. Although in Christer style, it fits my theory so I'll keep it.

[rjpalmer]

Oh yes so it does, however the narrator does not say many true things in that video, so in all fairness this might be another fib. Although in Christer style, it fits my theory so I'll keep it.

I had to go back and check my memory, and here is one of the exchanges from Christer that I was thinking of, but there are others scattered about the forums:


"I cannot say with certainty that Scobie was not given any material that could be used in Lechmere´s defense since I do not know what was compiled and given to him." -Christer Holmgren 6/26/2019.

"Christer, I was under the impression you did know. Or was it Ed, or another person or the program that complied the material?" -Scott Nelson 6/26/2019

"To put it simply, I don't know. But I always worked from the assumption that Edward guided these things; he advised the team in most questions, and none of the team had anywhere near as extensive knowledge of the case as he did. I didn't even know that Scobie would appear on the docu until the shooting had begun."

So, in this instance at least, he's passing the buck to Ed Stow.

[Geddy2112]

So, in this instance at least, he's passing the buck to Ed Stow.

Well yes, he would never admit to doing anything wrong. There was last night a huge uproar on Facebook involving too much posting on the Lechmere Theory. Wescott (biting lip) blamed the anti-Lechmere team for this and 'posting endless vitriol.' He was referring to me of course. Would you believe it Holmgren popped up with his victim post this morning claiming it's pointless debating the Lechmere Theory because -

'The main reason is that I am predisposing that no single sliver of fruitful debate is to be had in it. On the whole, the strange thing is that after all that has passed, as far as I can see, not a syllable of the case against Lechmere has been in any way affected. It has instead all been about personal remarks (for lack of using another terminology), and I have pointed that out on the boards: When somebody cannot debunk a theory in any way, some turn to instead trying to paint the person behind the theory out as a liar, as arrogant, as stupid, as misleading and so on. The aim should be clear enough - if this can be sold to the ones reading the thread, then there is no further need to deal with the theory itself. Those who lie and mislead intentionally should not be trusted, regardless of what they say, it can be discounted as wrong. - that seems to be the sole aim behind the reasoning.'

Of course none of the Lechmere theory has ever been successfully debunked, apart from the time gap, the Mizen scam, the name thing, the work wear at the inquest thing and the geography thing. Problem is Wescott is defending and protecting Christer and Stow (why?) allowing them to freely spread their crap. Went down hugely in my opinion of him last night, credibility now zero. Not that he will care.

Sorry, got side-tracked, apologies. I was saying if I remember correctly I'm sure Ed was approached to appear in the documentary but refused and suggested Christer, now I assume this is a little white lie and maybe more to do with his own 'name' change and all that entails.

[Fiver]

Hi Lewis C, to people who know the case I completely agree, however this video through it's distribution is probably the most watched Ripper documentary so to the untrained eye it's very compelling and believable. You just have to read the YouTube comments about how convinced they now are and how it's been solved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the newest breed of future Ripperoligists out there who now know not to bother because it's been solved. It's a sad state of affairs.

Checking Youtube

* Lemmino's JTR documentary 11 million views.
* Missing Evidence 2.1 million views.

[Geddy2112]

Checking Youtube

* Lemmino's JTR documentary 11 million views.
* Missing Evidence 2.1 million views.

Eeeek, I guess its because they tagged it as non-fiction