Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    No there was no need,what I provided him was sufficient

    He had been told Lechmere gave a false name which in reality was not the real truth and another part of how he came to make the statements that he made about there was enough evidence to put before a court

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    So you didn’t give him the full facts, just the ones you felt were sufficient.

    Comment


    • Whatever the shortcomings of the police,they had to rely on the information provided.Had there been information that conflicted with the statement of Cross, information that showed he was not telling the truth,the police would have had cause to treat him as suspect.There ws no such information.There never has been.
      Whatever my cup of tea Fisherman,I do not struggle with the element of opportunity in the murder of Nicholls.That is ,that her killer had to be in her company at the time of her death.On that score you fail miserably.You seem not to understand the distinction of being at the scene of the killing,and being at the scene at the time of the killing.Fortunately for Cross, the police at the time obvously were aware of the difference.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        Whatever the shortcomings of the police,they had to rely on the information provided.Had there been information that conflicted with the statement of Cross, information that showed he was not telling the truth,the police would have had cause to treat him as suspect.There ws no such information.There never has been.
        Whatever my cup of tea Fisherman,I do not struggle with the element of opportunity in the murder of Nicholls.That is ,that her killer had to be in her company at the time of her death.On that score you fail miserably.You seem not to understand the distinction of being at the scene of the killing,and being at the scene at the time of the killing.Fortunately for Cross, the police at the time obvously were aware of the difference.
        Apparently you do struggle with the "element of opportunity". this is the kind of nonsense the knee jerk lech deniers come up with. i mean where to start? lol of course lech was there at near TOD or "time of killing". she was still bleeding, paul thought she might still be breathing, drs TOD, lech was with her alone and he even puts himself there with her for many minutes. that lech could have physically been her killer and actually had the "element of opportunity" is the one thing which there is actually nothing in dispute.

        Comment


        • Sheesh,
          Now Trevor is being berated for not giving Scobie the full facts. What happened to questioning other people beforehand who were relying on Scobie and the case Lech had to answer for in a court of law ?
          Questions like - Is Scobie highly informed regarding the case or does he just have a brief outline ?
          Has he read all the witness testimonies and police reports and medical evidence regarding Polly and the other victims etc ?
          What Trevor has [rightly ] done is ask these questions.

          ​​​​​​​Regards Darryl

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
            Sheesh,
            Now Trevor is being berated for not giving Scobie the full facts. What happened to questioning other people beforehand who were relying on Scobie and the case Lech had to answer for in a court of law ?
            Questions like - Is Scobie highly informed regarding the case or does he just have a brief outline ?
            Has he read all the witness testimonies and police reports and medical evidence regarding Polly and the other victims etc ?
            What Trevor has [rightly ] done is ask these questions.

            Regards Darryl
            Trevor popped up and said he had given Scobie the ‘full facts’, then when challenged admitted he hadn’t given him the full facts only those that he (Trevor) deemed sufficient. Sufficient for what?

            Lechmere failed to disclose his real name in court. Did Trevor make that absolutely clear to Scobie? Did he impress upon him that Lechmere seems never to have used the name Cross except on the two occasions when he gave evidence at inquests? Did he explain that the name Lechmere was one that would almost certainly have been known to his neighbours?

            What would a jury have made of that omission if they’d become aware of it?


            Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-13-2021, 06:05 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              Trevor popped up and said he had given Scobie the ‘full facts’, then when challenged admitted he hadn’t given him the full facts only those that he (Trevor) deemed sufficient. Sufficient for what?

              Lechmere failed to disclose his real name in court. Did Trevor make that clear to Scobie? Did he impress upon him that Lechmere seems never to have used the name Cross except on the two occasions when he gave evidence at inquests? Did he explain that the name Lechmere was one that would almost certainly have been known to his neighbours?

              What would a jury have made of that omission if they’d become aware of it?


              Was Scobie made clear of all the witness testimonies on all the murders,such as the doubts surrounding the TOD death regarding Annie IE not on Lech's route to work ? All the police testimony such as PC Neil saying initially that blood was oozing from the throat ?
              That Liz and Kate were killed when it is likely that Lech was not at work that Day ?
              What we do have is a man who is near a body of someone recently murdered [ with a legit reason for being there IE passing through on his way to work, same as Paul ], and that's it. Enough for a court of law ? Are you sure ?
              And as for the name issue , a completely false name , are you sure ? When it is his stepfathers surname.
              How do you know that his friends, neighbours, work colleagues did not know that his stepfather was known as Cross ?
              I apologise if I am wrong on this point but false name but not false address or work place . He is not doing a good job, in my view, of covering his tracks.
              At the end of the day, again Trevor has rightly asked questions on the who's when's etc of what Scobie knew.

              Regards Darryl

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post

                Was Scobie made clear of all the witness testimonies on all the murders,such as the doubts surrounding the TOD death regarding Annie IE not on Lech's route to work ? All the police testimony such as PC Neil saying initially that blood was oozing from the throat ?
                That Liz and Kate were killed when it is likely that Lech was not at work that Day ?
                What we do have is a man who is near a body of someone recently murdered [ with a legit reason for being there IE passing through on his way to work, same as Paul ], and that's it. Enough for a court of law ? Are you sure ?
                And as for the name issue , a completely false name , are you sure ? When it is his stepfathers surname.
                How do you know that his friends, neighbours, work colleagues did not know that his stepfather was known as Cross ?
                I apologise if I am wrong on this point but false name but not false address or work place . He is not doing a good job, in my view, of covering his tracks.
                At the end of the day, again Trevor has rightly asked questions on the who's when's etc of what Scobie knew.

                Regards Darryl
                At what point did I say it was a completely false name? You seem to be reading all sorts of stuff into my post that wasn’t there.

                We have evidence of Lechmere’s neighbours being aware of the name Lechmere while Thomas Cross was still alive. Two decades after his stepfather’s death, having moved to a new area and registered his children at school in the name of Lechmere, is it remotely plausible that he was only known by the name Cross? Clearly not, so by not revealing that his real name was Lechmere CAL was not giving the coroner the ‘full facts’. Is that the sort of thing that would impress a jury if they had been made aware of it?

                We have no idea how selective Trevor was in providing Scobie with the ‘full facts’.



                Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-13-2021, 06:43 AM.

                Comment


                • Hi MrBarnett,

                  Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  Trevor popped up and said he had given Scobie the ‘full facts’, then when challenged admitted he hadn’t given him the full facts only those that he (Trevor) deemed sufficient. Sufficient for what?

                  Lechmere failed to disclose his real name in court. Did Trevor make that absolutely clear to Scobie? Did he impress upon him that Lechmere seems never to have used the name Cross except on the two occasions when he gave evidence at inquests? Did he explain that the name Lechmere was one that would almost certainly have been known to his neighbours?

                  What would a jury have made of that omission if they’d become aware of it?
                  Scobie was already aware of the use of Cross rather than Lechmere, however, from Trevor's post it appears he may not have been aware that Cross was a name for which he had a legitimate connection. That changes things. Overall, I get the impression from Trevor's post that there were a fair few things of which Scobie was unaware. Even if there are more facts that Trevor did not get into that just means that Scobie's claim it is "court ready" is demonstrably unsound because it would be based upon an incomplete knowledge of the case. The alternative is that Scobie had been previously made aware of the facts Trevor didn't go into, in which case there is no need for Trevor to present them again since he has that information already. In either case, the fact Trevor was able to present to Scobie pretty basic information he did not know tells us that Scobie's opinion was formed upon incomplete information. And, if he now views the case as less "court ready", then that would mean his previous statements no longer apply.

                  Basically, if during a phone call, Trevor's presentation of information, even if slanted towards Cross/Lechmere's innocence, was enough to sway Scobie's confidence, then that tells us a defense lawyer would easily establish reasonable doubt.

                  But regardless, we now know that Scobie's statements were made without a full understanding of the facts, and so therefore his opinion made at that time cannot be considered sound.

                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 09-13-2021, 06:51 AM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post


                    What would a jury have made of that omission if they’d become aware of it?
                    The full facts as we now know them are such that the case would never have made it to court, as there would have been no evidence to charge Lechmere.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                      That's my point. Lechmere wasn't "found" at all. He made contact with Paul and brought Nichols to his attention. You might think it's semantics, but language is important here, as it can mislead those not au fait with the case. In much the same way that "Lechmere used a fake name" is misleading because he gave a familial surname that he had assumed before in an official capacity, but on paper it sounds sketchier than it actually is.

                      My point is that you should not be terrified by calling things by their correct names, Harry. When Robert Paul arrived outside Browns Stable Yard, he FOUND Charles Lechmere standing there, out in the street.
                      In your former post, you moved the goalposts somewhat by saying that Lechmere was not found DOING SOMETHING there, and I guess that is were the paranoia comes from: It must not be led on that Lechmere did anything to Nichols, and somehow, you seem to think that the word "found" is a pointer to sinister actions. It is not. It is a sinple fact stated in the one logical way it can be stated - when Robert Paul arrived at the murder site, he found Lechmere there. Lechmere was already in place there when Paul arrived.

                      If we should try and ban the word "found" from the discussion, what would we put in its place? When Robert Paul arrived outside Browns Stable Yard, he ......... Lechmere standing there. Be my guest, which is the better word? Confirmed?

                      As for the name, I very clearly stated from the outset that I think that all other names than the one you are registered by are per se false names. Since peopole were outraged by this, I have since used milder expressions, something I hope has not gone unnoticed.


                      Your presumption of guilt is a confirmation bias. Perhaps the most logical explanation is that Lechmere acted innocent because he was innocent?
                      I will not tolerate the word "innocent"!! It leads on that he would not have been the killer, and we cannot have such a bias!!!

                      Or can we?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Hi MrBarnett,



                        Scobie was already aware of the use of Cross rather than Lechmere, however, from Trevor's post it appears he may not have been aware that Cross was a name for which he had a legitimate connection. That changes things. Overall, I get the impression from Trevor's post that there were a fair few things of which Scobie was unaware. Even if there are more facts that Trevor did not get into that just means that Scobie's claim it is "court ready" is demonstrably unsound because it would be based upon an incomplete knowledge of the case. The alternative is that Scobie had been previously made aware of the facts Trevor didn't go into, in which case there is no need for Trevor to present them again since he has that information already. In either case, the fact Trevor was able to present to Scobie pretty basic information he did not know tells us that Scobie's opinion was formed upon incomplete information. And, if he now views the case as less "court ready", then that would mean his previous statements no longer apply.

                        Basically, if during a phone call, Trevor's presentation of information, even if slanted towards Cross/Lechmere's innocence, was enough to sway Scobie's confidence, then that tells us a defense lawyer would easily establish reasonable doubt.

                        But regardless, we now know that Scobie's statements were made without a full understanding of the facts, and so therefore his opinion made at that time cannot be considered sound.

                        - Jeff
                        I have no idea in what terms Trevor imparted his ‘full facts’ to Scobie. I doubt they were the ‘full’ facts though. So Scobie has twice been provided with selective facts by people hoping he will confirm their take on things, and he seems to have obliged on both occasions.

                        I wonder if a third person were to give him the actual ‘full facts’ (as far as we know them) about the name issue whether he would think a jury would have viewed that in a positive or negative light?








                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                          Lechmere failed to disclose his real name in court [...]

                          What would a jury have made of that omission if they’d become aware of it?
                          He did not fail to disclose his real name. "Fail" presumes there was an obligation to disclose his other name. There was not.

                          One of the basic points of a trial by jury of one's peers is that the jurymembers will know and understand the social context and circumstances of the events. A Victorian jury would therefore have known that using a secondary name was not unusual and did not imply anything: some people had a birthname used in one context and another name used in others.

                          The danger arises when one seeks to apply 21st century standards to 19th century practices.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                            We have no idea how selective Trevor was in providing Scobie with the ‘full facts’.
                            Why would I need to be selective the more of the true facts scobie was made aware of the more it became apparent that he had not been provided with the full facts and therefore his opinion was tainted.

                            As to who was responsible for misleading him and their motives I will leave that open to suggestions.

                            What I will say is that the tv production company were commissioned to make this documentary by a televison channel, with the end result that they had to show enough content to prove Lechmere was the killer. which is what the edited final program did show with all the contributions from Scobie and others. However, had they had included all the facts as they are known, they would not have been able to achieve that objective, because we now know that there is no evidence which shows or proves Lechmere was the killer and that the facts provided by Fish and Edward are unsafe to rely on to prove he was the killer.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-13-2021, 07:27 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                              I've never seen this stood up in any way that stops it looking like layers of wishful thinking.

                              M.
                              Layers of wishful thinking by whom and for what possible purpose? Are you suggesting that in September 1888 someone pretended to check a train timetable and lied about the answer? Why?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                                The police admitted that they didn't do their job properly. Inspector Spratling was forced to concede at the inquest on 17th September, that they had still not spoken to all of the residents prior to the inquest. Any statement the police eventually gathered from Mrs Lilley came too late for the inquest.
                                The last day of the inquest was on September 22, when signalman Eade was recalled and the coroner summed the case up (without any mentioning at all of Lilleys claims, although they were in the news a full sixteen days earlier, meaning that the police could have hauled Lilley in to the third day of the inquest, had they found reason to).

                                Letīs get thing correct if we can!

                                Now, let us return to your star witness, Harriet Lilley, from 7 Bucks Row! Her claims were originally printed in the Echo on the 6th of September, looking like this:

                                An important statement, throwing considerable light on a point hitherto surrounded with some uncertainty - the time the crime was committed in Buck's-row, or the body deposited there - was made this afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered. Mrs. Lilley said: - I slept in front of the house, and could hear everything that occured in the street. On that Thursday night I was somehow very restless. Well, I heard something I mentioned to my husband in the morning. It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away. It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage went by as I heard the sounds. There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint. I then woke my husband, and said to him, "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night." Mrs. Lilley added that as soon as she heard of the murder she came to the conclusion that the voices she heard were in some way connected with it. The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

                                It has been ascertained that on the morning of the date of the murder a goods train passed on the East London Railway at about half-past three - the 3.7 out from New-cross - which was probably the time when Mary Ann Nicholls was either killed or placed in Buck's-row.


                                The first thing we should notice here is that the Echo for some reason claim that 3.30 "was probably the time when mary Ann Nichols was either killed or placed in Bucks Row". This insight on behalf of the paper was never shared by Dr Llewellyn, who examined Nichols at around 4.10 and firmly stated that she had not been dead longer than half an hour. This of course meant that 3.40 was the earliest time of death as per the medico. So wherever the Echo got 3.30 from, it is NOT in line with the official line, which said 3.40 or later.
                                The unreliability of the Echo article is further strengthened by how the paper allows for Nichols to have been PLACED in Bucks Row at 3.30, but killed at any other time before this stage.

                                Now, how does this all read? It reads as if the journalist was very keen to justify Lilleys claim: Regardless of when Nichols was killed, at 3.30 or way before it, it MUST have been the murder Lilley heard. Either she heard the actual murder at 3.30 OR she heard how the dead body of Polly Nichols was dumped at 3.30.
                                So much for the credence that can be put in the article!

                                Letīs move on now. Harriet Lilley lived in 7 Bucks Row, two doors removed from the spot where the body was discovered. So what was it Lilley heard from her vantage point? Well, to begin with: Everything. Nothing could pass wothout her hearing it, she asserts us.

                                Among other things she heard a moan and some gasps:

                                It was a painful moan - two or three faint gasps - and then it passed away.

                                Now, does that or does that not seem to sound like a killer cutting the throat of a woman (the moan - ouch!), who then tried to draw breath through her severed windpipe (the gasps)? I am reminded of how witnesses Long and Cadosch got the exact four words that described the whole scenario in Hanbury Street: "Will you?" "Yes" in the street and then "No!" in the backyard. All very convenient, is it not?
                                I think one of the lessons we must learn is not to beleive that everything people coming forward and saying in high profile murder cases is necessarily true. Out of a large heap of prostitutes who all claimed to have heard a cry of "Murder" in Millers Court, the police sifted out two witnesses. They could not know that Prater and Lewis were correct, but they DID know that not all of the prostitutes could be, having given very varying times when the outcry was heard.

                                It was quite dark at the time, but a luggage train went by as I heard the sounds.

                                Wait a sec - if a luggage train went by (and it went CLOSE by!), how could Lilley hear "faint gasps"?

                                Next:
                                There was, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window. I distincly heard voices, but cannot say what was said - it was too faint.

                                Underneath the window? Harriet Lilleys window? At 7 Bucks Row? Lilley does not clarify if she heard the whipspers or the gasps first. The way she tells her story, it sounds as if the whispers came later, but letīs be generous and allow for both scenarios. Anyhow, why was there a conversation outside 7 Bucks Row, when the murder took place two doors away? And is it not odd that Lilley heard the whispers "distinctly" but could not mnake out what was said because it was "too faint"? I mean, what was it? Distinct or faint?

                                Lilley then wakes up her husband and tells him about the gasps and whispers, and ... No, wait. She does NOT tell him about the gasps and the whispers, she instead tells him: "I don't know what possesses me, but I cannot sleep to-night."

                                But Lilley KNEW what "possesed" her, did she not? She had heard moans, gasps and whispers, thatīs what possesed her. So why not tell her husband that?

                                Lilley then signs off by asserting us that it was no ordinary street brawl she heard: The cries were very different from those of an ordinary street brawl.

                                The cries?

                                Wasnīt it a moan, faint gasps and faint whispers she had heard? Where does the crying come from?

                                All in all, this is a testimony I would be very careful about. And it seems to me that the police came to the exact same conclusion.







                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X