Evidence of innocence

[Doctored Whatsit]

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?

Unfortunately Christer, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of British justice. He must be innocent until proven guilty. So you must tolerate the word "innocent" until you prove him guilty, which you haven't.

[Fisherman]

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.

The police were informed by Llewellyn that Nichols died at 3.40 or later, meaning that Lechmere could not be exonerated. Two forensic physicians agree that the blood evidence likely puts Lechmere on the spot at the TOD.

Fortunately for Lechmere (which is the same man as the one you call Cross) the police did not do their job properly.

Unfortunately for me, you cannot get this into your head and I have to spend way too much time on it.

[Fisherman]

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?

They would not like it, was what Scobie said. And of course they would not.

As for Scobie having grounded his decision on the name matter, it needs to be added that what Scobie says in the docu is "The timings really have him" and "There is a pattern of offending, an area of offending to which he is linked" and "when the coincidences mount up and they do in his case, it becomes one coincidence too many".

I fail to hear Scobie saying a iot about the name, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the ninformation he had at hand involved information that Lechmere had once had a stepfather named Cross. Regardless of whether he did or not, though, you are of course correct, Gary: The problem lies not in how he used the name Cross at the inquest(s), it lies in how he otherwise never did so in any contacts with authorities, as far as we know.

[Fisherman]

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

Trevor cannot even verify that he did speak to Scobie, I´m afraid.

It has been pointed out before that what Scobie would have done was to assess whether the points of accusation would have been enough to take Lechmere to trial. I beleive it was Paul Begg who said that such an approach is entirely kosher. If Scobie was to be provided with all the information available, it would take him years to assess it. And who would we choose to provide the information? Steve Blomer? Trevor Marriott? Me? You?
Perhaps you can see the problems linked to the suggestion?

What Scobie did was to look at the points of accusation. He found them enough to take Lechmere to a murder trial that suggested that he was the killer. If anybody thinks that is uninteresting because Scobie may have been unaware that there is a controversy about when Chapman died, then they need to think again. Not least do they need to ask themselves which other suspect there is who would warrant a murder trial, going on the existing evidence against them.

Any suggestions on that one, Jeff?

[Fisherman]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We? Who´s "we", Trevor?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Christer, your appraisal of the newspaper article and its significance seems absolutely desperate. It's a typical newspaper article. It wasn't written by a lawyer or a policeman. Mrs Lilley's story is simple and straightforward, and explains why a police officer, a nightwatchman and other residents who were awake heard nothing. We know that the police were very slow to interview everyone, and you have as usual, absolutely no evidence to make your claim that the police rejected her story.

Time and time again we have all agreed that a doctor's estimated time of death is pretty approximate at best, so stretching it by 5 - 10 minutes at most is not even a slight problem. So the journalist pondered on whether the murder was committed in Bucks Row, or whether the body was dropped off there - that is the journalist wondering about the possibilities, and is totally unrelated to the facts as stated by Mrs Lilley.

She wasn't awake because of the apparent murder, she was awake and heard noises, so she told her husband she couldn't sleep. If she had been woken by the sounds of the apparent murder and realised what it was, she presumably would have said so, but this wasn't the case. She was just someone who couldn't sleep, and said so. I suspect that the comment about the sounds being different from a street brawl, besides the fact that they clearly were, were inspired by a question from the journalist.

Spratling's admission that not all of the residents had been interviewed immediately followed Abberline answering a question from the coroner about witness contact, and so it appears that the coroner was asking about this police failure. Maybe the coroner had read the article about what Mrs Lilley heard!

[Fisherman]

As to who was responsible for misleading him ..

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And here, in one second only, Trevor Marriott treats it as a fact that James Scobie was misled.

That is the exact quality of research we should always expect from Trevor.

To claim that Scobie was misled takes evidence. Proof. The simple truth is that Scobie was informed about the elements of accusation against Lechmere. That does not mean that he was misled. He was very likely also informed about where there is conflicting evidence; the material he had at hand formed a thick book as we can see in the docu. But even if we were to suggest that the conflicitng evidence was not available to Scobie, that does not mean that he was misinformed. It would take that the material claimed that there was no conflictin evidence before such a thing could be established.

So far, the one thing established is that Trevor Marriott posts unestablished accusations as if they were facts.

[Fisherman]

Unfortunately Christer, the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of British justice. He must be innocent until proven guilty. So you must tolerate the word "innocent" until you prove him guilty, which you haven't.

Maybe you can help out by explaining to me why the word "found" is not tolerable, being the sharp observer that you are? Well, if you had been THAT sharp, you would perhaps have noticed that my post was made with my tongue in my cheek, but anyway...

[Mark J D]

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?

Fake incredulity and synthetic shock noted.

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

And here, in one second only, Trevor Marriott treats it as a fact that James Scobie was misled.

That is the exact quality of research we should always expect from Trevor.

To claim that Scobie was misled takes evidence. Proof. The simple truth is that Scobie was informed about the elements of accusation against Lechmere. That does not mean that he was misled. He was very likely also informed about where there is conflicting evidence; the material he had at hand formed a thick book as we can see in the docu. But even if we were to suggest that the conflicitng evidence was not available to Scobie, that does not mean that he was misinformed. It would take that the material claimed that there was no conflictin evidence before such a thing could be established.

So far, the one thing established is that Trevor Marriott posts unestablished accusations as if they were facts.

These are established facts which clearly you do not accept for obvious reasons and would I be foolish enoght to say I had a convesration with Scobie if I did not?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Fake incredulity and synthetic shock noted.

M.

But no answer?

[Fisherman]

Christer, your appraisal of the newspaper article and its significance seems absolutely desperate.

How odd! And here I am thinking that YOU are the desperate one?

It's a typical newspaper article.

Being a journalist myself, I think I may be the better judge of that matter.

It wasn't written by a lawyer or a policeman. Mrs Lilley's story is simple and straightforward, and explains why a police officer, a nightwatchman and other residents who were awake heard nothing. We know that the police were very slow to interview everyone, and you have as usual, absolutely no evidence to make your claim that the police rejected her story.

Lilleys story has a good few things that do not match up, I´m afraid. Maybe you should read it again? As for the police having rejected her story, the opposite would mean that they accepted it. And to see what likely applies, we should turn to the inquest and the police reports and see if she pops up there or whether it seems that the police accepted the timings the Echo suggested.
The simple fact is that NEITHER YOU NOR ME have proof about whether her story was accepted or not - but we can both see that there is no sign whatsoever that she was believed. One such sign would be if she had been called to the inquest, something you claimed she could not have been in your former post. That, however, seems an abandoned line of yours by now...? For some reason?

Time and time again we have all agreed that a doctor's estimated time of death is pretty approximate at best, so stretching it by 5 - 10 minutes at most is not even a slight problem. So the journalist pondered on whether the murder was committed in Bucks Row, or whether the body was dropped off there - that is the journalist wondering about the possibilities, and is totally unrelated to the facts as stated by Mrs Lilley.

Yes, that is true. And if you care to read properly, it is the exact point I make. However, the fact that the journalists wish does NOT match up with the official line, DOES much impact Lilleys credibility.

She wasn't awake because of the apparent murder, she was awake and heard noises, so she told her husband she couldn't sleep. If she had been woken by the sounds of the apparent murder and realised what it was, she presumably would have said so, but this wasn't the case. She was just someone who couldn't sleep, and said so. I suspect that the comment about the sounds being different from a street brawl, besides the fact that they clearly were, were inspired by a question from the journalist.

Why tell your husband that you don´t know what "possesses you" if you KNOW what possesses you? And regardless of what you suggest (without any proof, as you so much like to say) about the journalists role, Lilley is nevertheless quoted as speaking about the faint gasps and faint whispers as somebody crying out. That is a very strange thing to do. It was EITHER a case of faint gaps and whispers OR a case of somebody crying out. Not both. But Lilley magically accomplished both.

Spratling's admission that not all of the residents had been interviewed immediately followed Abberline answering a question from the coroner about witness contact, and so it appears that the coroner was asking about this police failure. Maybe the coroner had read the article about what Mrs Lilley heard!

Yes, I think it was part of the reason for the coroner reprimanding the police. It may even have been the sole reason for it, for all I know. However, I´m afraid that does not mean that the coroner believed in Lilley. If he had, she would have stood in the Working Lads on the 22nd, just like Thomas Made.
What the coroner learnt was not that an important witness had been overlooked. He learnt that the dwellers of Bucks Row had largely been left unquestioned, and he found it untolerable.
Of course, if Baxter DID read about Lilley in the papers, then she would have been eligible for that inquest from the 6th of September.

PS. I had a quick look in Sugdens book and in the A-Z from 2010, to see how Lilley fares in those hands. But I could not find her in any of these publications. One onders why. Or not.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Maybe you can help out by explaining to me why the word "found" is not tolerable, being the sharp observer that you are? Well, if you had been THAT sharp, you would perhaps have noticed that my post was made with my tongue in my cheek, but anyway...

I did not debate the significance of the word "found", as a "sharp observer" such as yourself would have noticed. But I should have realised that every time you clearly make a mistake for all to see, it would be merely "tongue in cheek".

[harry]

Fisherman,
In what way did the police not do their job,as you claim.?
Cross gave evidence,as did other witnesses,before an inquest .Neither the inquest jury,the police and press who attended the inquest,raised any question of guilt against Cross.All heard the same testimony.All treated him as a witness of good faith,a person who found a body.
Did all not do their job properly?
What medical evidence does even better,is to not rule out another person than Cross having killed Nicholls,which ,taken with the lack of any incriminating evidence,speaks well for Cross.
All else having failed,I suppose the police of that time not doing their job properly,might be be an expected excuse.Like Cross, they are in no position to answer that charge.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Christer,

Just a brief note to make absolutely sure that there is no misunderstanding about my opinion of Mrs Lilley's absence from the inquest. I haven't changed any part of my opinion - though I totally accept that we don't know and cannot know the truth. I suspect that because the police were very slow to interview local residents, they hadn't interviewed Mrs Lilley by Sept 17th, that the coroner may have been aware of this which prompted his questions to Abberline and Spratling - he might even have been hoping to have her as a witness but didn't because the police hadn't seen her to verify her account. We simply don't know. One thing is clear, and that is that there is no evidence which suggests that the police checked her out and rejected her statement. So, for me her story is there for us to note and consider, we should recognise that it explains why others heard nothing, we recognise that it requires a very slight extension of the doctor's estimated ToD. But it is there to be considered. The "Lechmere is JtR" camp will reject it, others will leave it on the table as something which makes sense, and should be considered as a genuine possibility.