Evidence of innocence

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[rjpalmer]

Have a great weekend...

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

[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...

[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

[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

[rjpalmer]

However like I said above he seems to have forgot five times, Swedish Newspaper, Cutting Point x2, Missing Evidence and Missing Evidence Notes to Scobie.... very forgetful it seems. Dare I say it quietly.. I think on the balance of probabilities we need to swap the word 'forgot' to 'deliberately.'

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?

You put me in an awkward position, because although I share your skepticism 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.

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.

Now, let me stress this : I don't agree with Christer--it is absolutely imperative that Lechmere's own words were used because in saying 'about 3.30,' Lechmere is acknowledging that he didn't actually know the precise time he left and thus may easily have made a highly significant miscalculation.

So yes, he should have said 'about 3.30.' Absolutely. But it's not dishonesty--it's just cloudy thinking.

(As I understand Christer's thinking) 3.30 was Cross's best estimate. If he meant 3.35 or 3.25, he would have said 'about 3.25' or 'about 3.35.' He didn't--he said 'about 3.30.'

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).

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.

Anway, I don't see Christer as dishonest. I do see him as wrong, however. The real question is the accuracy of Robert Paul--not whether Lechmere left at 3:28, or 3:32.

Can you dig it?

Regards,

RP

[Geddy2112]

It couldn’t be simpler. There is no other explanation which stands up to the merest scrutiny. According to the evidence (and Baxter) Cross found the body of Polly Nichols at some time around 3.41. Nothing exact can be stated.

Timings... I've missed the beginning of the test match reading how you took over 20 pages of forum posts to try and get an answer out of Christer regarding the 'about.' I'm not sure you are aware but I did find an answer in May 2024...

And there was never any conscious effort to mislead on my behalf. You (Facebook Member) argue that I knew that Lechmere said ”around 3.30”, and I did - but I did not choose to leave it out. I simply forgot to add it.

However like I said above he seems to have forgot five times, Swedish Newspaper, Cutting Point x2, Missing Evidence and Missing Evidence Notes to Scobie.... very forgetful it seems. Dare I say it quietly.. I think on the balance of probabilities we need to swap the word 'forgot' to 'deliberately.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fisherman didn't only focus on Baxter's summing up statement

He reached his conclusions based on a detailed analyse of what Llewellyn, Paul, Baxter and Swanson said.

Whether or not you agree with him, that doesn't make you right and make him wrong in the slightest, no matter how much cheering you recieve from the anti-Lechmere camp.




The Baron

Actually it does. Fisherman is very obviously wrong.


My first question really does require an answer even though it’s very likely that none will be forthcoming. No serious one anyway:

Since when did you stop being a fully paid up member of the ‘anti-Lechmere’ camp, so that you know feel comfortable standing alongside Messrs Holmgren and Stow in criticising and mocking so called anti-Lechmerians?


Remember these?


“Don't tell me you swallowed the blood 'evidence' of Fisherman?!”

“Lechmerians want us to believe anything they say,”

“It must be Lechmere's magic,”

“I like to start my daywork by killing cutting and mutilating someone around”

“Fisherman is selling the idea that if Mizen went to the body and found no policeman there,”

“And look how the Lechmerians contradict themselves!”

“This whole theory is based ubon the ignorance of all other parties involved, one has to be an imbecile to believe such nonsense”

“No Fish, that will not work, try harder!”

“Caz post has set an end to this fishy tunnel under logic and facts that you are trying to escape through”

“I read some fairy tales that were much better than this.”

“Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving”

“Lechmere wouldn't have lied to Mizen, then he is risking finding the police over his shoulder.”

“He could have run away, but the Lechmerians want us to believe he injected himself intentionally in the events after killing Nichols,”

“A very disturbed theory, with zero consistency.”

”Lechmerians have failed to bring any single evidence or shred of a clue to justify their claims, they even went to the extreme phantasy and presented Lechmere as the solo ripper-torso murderer of his time, aka Lechmerianismus!”

“If a lechmerian told me: look at Lechmere, all of his actions whithout any single exception were very normal, doesn't that seem suspicious to you? Then I would say he has a better argument than anything was ever produced by Fisherman and his company.”

“If he chose to run away no one ever will be talking now about him, and Paul could have very likely missed the body.”

“Thats why this is a very weak theory, one has first to believe of Lechmere guilt then try to find excuses to keep the flame on:

“Endless excuses to fit Lechmere in.

“But the Lechmerians remained in their subzero state of denial.”

…

But now it’s those pesky anti-Lechmerians who are the bad guys and Fisherman and the Cross crowd are paragons of probity. We all know why you’ve assumed this position and it’s nothing to do with evidence.


…


And we know how and more importantly WHY Fisherman wants the discovery time as near to 3.45 as possible don’t we? For exactly the same reason that he wants Cross leaving his house at as near to 3.30 as possible….so that he can create the mysterious gap because this piece of evidence manipulation is the only way of creating any suspicion against Cross. Without the manufactured gap he’s standing there shaking a completely empty sack. An obviously innocent witness.

Baxter, as we know, said: “The time at which the body was found cannot have been far from 3.45 a.m., as it is fixed by so many independent data..”


Dr. Llewelyn couldn’t contribute to when the body was found in any way, so he’s out. I don’t know why even you mentioned him.

So the only times that we have at the Inquest are from PC’s Neil, Mizen and Thain who all gave a time of 3.45. Very obviously the body was found before they became involved…so the body was found by Cross before 3.45. So the question is how long ‘before 3.45?’ There is only one possible way that anyone, including Baxter, could have estimated how long before 3.45 the body was discovered and that’s the testimony of Robert Paul who said, when talking about how long elapsed between him seeing Cross and them both meeting Mizen: “Not more than four minutes had elapsed from the time he first saw the woman.”

It couldn’t be simpler. There is no other explanation which stands up to the merest scrutiny. According to the evidence (and Baxter) Cross found the body of Polly Nichols at some time around 3.41. Nothing exact can be stated.

[Geddy2112]

It's reasonable to figure that Scobie wasn't given an objective, full account of the facts, because The Missing Evidence itself isn't that. If they were capable of or interested in giving Scobie a full, objective account, that would raise the question of why they didn't do the same in the documentary as a whole.

Evening sir, Very true. It's clear form the picture, well it's not clear as my pausing skills are crap but this is the document given to Scobie...



He gives his opinion (and I've just five mins ago seen Christer pull this out AGAIN as a sign of guilt) that 'the timings really hurt him.' The problem is the document says 'at 3:30' and not 'about 3:30am' and that is a blatant lie. A lie Christer has repeated at least five times now, twice in his book, twice on the Missing Evidence and once in his Swedish Newspaper article, when challenged about this he claims he 'forgot' to put the 'about' in. Forgot? Five times.. that is some amnesia the poor bugger is suffering, if I was a betting man I'd suggest deliberate as it is required to manufacture the mythological time gap.

So if Scobie was given bad information to form his opinion it's logical that his opinion is bad. However like I said it keeps getting trotted out time after time after time.