Evidence of innocence

[Fiver]

There is such evidence, actually. Circumstantial evidence. Otherwise, Scobie would not have said that the case would warrant a modern day trial. But you may have meant proof? Which I didnīt say there was either in my post. So what were those astonishong statements you are speaking of...?]

Scobie was clearly fed a mix of misinformation and speculation masquerading as fact.

"The timings really hurt him because she could have been very very recently fatally killed. You can inflict injuries, as I'm sure a pathologist will tell you, with a knife in seconds and the question is, "where were you?" "what were you doing during that time?" Because actually he has never given a proper answer. He is somebody who seems to be acting in a way, behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like. A jury would not like that. When the coincidences add up, mount up against a defendant, and they mount up in this case, it becomes one coincidence too many. The fact that there is a pattern of offending, almost an area of offending, of which he is linked geographically and physically, you add all those points together, piece it all together and the prosecution have the most probative powerful material the courts use against individual suspects. What we would say is that he has got a prima facie case to answer which means there is a case good enough to put before a jury which suggests that he was the killer."

* The timings only "really hurt" Lechmere if you fudge the timings for the Nichols murder. The timings for the Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes murders help Lechmere.

* Charles Lechmere did not act in a suspicious manner. Everything he did makes sense for an innocent man to do and some of the things he did would have been quite stupid for a guilty man to do.

* There are no "coincidences' to mount up.

* There is no "pattern of offending" tied to Charles Lechmere.

* Charles Lechmere was no more "linked geographically" to the crimes than Robert Paul or hundreds of other men who lived and worked in the area.

* Charles Lechmere was only "physically" linked to the Nichols murder. This only happened because Lechmere chose to testify - neither Robert Paul nor PC Mizen knew who he was. There was no physical evidence that proves Lechmere killed Nichols.

As the old saying goes "Garbage in, garbage out."

[Trevor Marriott]

Darryl, Have you not picked up on the suggestion that Sunday may have been Lechmere’s one day off in the week, so on Saturday evenings he may have visited his old Ma and his daughter who were living near Berner Street?

Gary

and even if he did, does that make him a killer?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

If a person is found alone with a murder victim at a time that is consistent with that victims TOD, and if no other suspect can be found, then that person will become a suspect unless there is something that nullifies the possibility (such as how it would perhaps have been physically impossible for the person to be the killer, etc).

Other suspects were found. For example, John Pizer was a strong suspect till he was found to have an alibi for the Chapman murder.

Charles Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder as well, which should "nullify" him as a suspect unless someone can prove the alibi was faked.

[Fiver]

... Aaaand THERE it went wrong. Nichols bled for around eight minutes AT LEAST after Paul arrived. That means that she bled up until around 3.53 AT LEAST. 3.53 is 23 minutes removed from 3.30. Ingemar Thiblin said that he guessed that the maximun bleeding time with the kind of damage Nichls had would be 10-15 minutes. So she would have stopped bleeding at 3.40-3.45 if Lilley heard the murder. And there goes that suggestion out the window.]

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible. Not maximum - possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers.

Your 'blood evidence" is not evidence. It is your interpretation of vague questions that you asked from men who said they had little or no data to base their estimates on.

[Fiver]

Harriet Lilley was not called to the inquest. Was that because the police put trust in her? Any guess?

The police not calling Harriet Lilley to the Inquest is not evidence that they did not trust her statements.

Israel Schwartz was not called to the Stride Inquest, yet the police spent significant time looking for the Broadshouldered Man and the Pipeman he claimed to have seen.

[Fiver]

'... apparently ... presumably...'

In short, it's a made-up time. We have a train with no passengers, running in the middle of the night, and we place its timing at whatever point on the clock looks like it might be of greatest use -- in this case, as a hopeful cause of embarrassment to the current most-unwanted theory. Garbage data for a garbage purpose.

And, of course, if the moment ever comes that this train starts looking like something that a favoured suspect needed to hop onto -- say, on his race to or from a cricket match -- we could see the 'estimated time of passing' jump from 03:30 to 03:45 without the slightest blush from anyone...

M.

It is not a made up time, it is an estimated time. Considering trains ran on schedules, it's probably a fairly accurate estimate.

"A statement that may throw some 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 on Thursday afternoon by Mrs. Harriet Lilley, who lives two doors from the spot where the deceased was discovered.

Mrs. Lilley Said: "I slept in the front of the house, and could hear everything that occurred 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 train went by as I heard the sounds.

There wee, too, a sound as of whispers underneath the window.

I distinctly 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 tonight."

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 to 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 Nichols was either killed or placed in Buck's Row." - The People, Sunday, 9th September, 1888.

Of course the train passing at "about half-past three" doesn't help in determining if Lilley actually heard anything, or just dreamed it, or made it up. And even if it is an accurate account of what Lilley heard, that doesn't mean she heard a murder.

[Fiver]

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

Just like the makers of the "documentary". Only some of the documentary's "facts" were opinions.

[harry]

First time Iv'e heard that a Coroner can give orders to the police,on how they should carry out their duties,Fisherman.Perhaps you can elaborate.You mentioned it in your last post to me.I doubt very much the police enquired at every house in Hanbury Street,Berner street,Dorset street etc.Were they lax in their duties at those times? As much as the police had powers to investigate,they also relied on the public to come forward with information,which several did,and there is no record that shows these people were ignored.What,in your opinion,would a house to house enquirey in Bucks Row have acheived in relation to your case against Cross?
I have said before,the killer needed to be in the company of Nichols at the time of her death.Do you believe a house to house enquirey would have revealed that?

[MrBarnett]

Other suspects were found. For example, John Pizer was a strong suspect till he was found to have an alibi for the Chapman murder.

Charles Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder as well, which should "nullify" him as a suspect unless someone can prove the alibi was faked.

Are you ever going to answer the question of where Lechmere was when Chapman was killed?

[MrBarnett]

Just like the makers of the "documentary". Only some of the documentary's "facts" were opinions.

Yes, equally remiss.

[MrBarnett]

and even if he did, does that make him a killer?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A rather silly question.

[MrBarnett]

Deleted

[Trevor Marriott]

You asked some vague questions of Jason Payne James and Ingemar Thiblin, and interpreted them the way you wanted to.

For Jason Payne James:
Q. Just how quickly CAN a person with the kind of damage that Nichols had bleed out, if we have nothing that hinders the bloodflow, and if the victim is flat on level ground? Can a total desanguination take place in very few minutes in such a case.
A. Yes
Q. Do you know of any examples?
A. No
Q. Is it possible for such a person to bleed out completely and stop bleeding in three minutes? In five? In seven?
A. I guess blood may continue to flow for up to this amount of time, but the shorter periods are more likely to be more realistic.

You don't even appear to understand that to "bleed out completely' and to "stop bleeding" are not the same thing.

For Ingemar Thiblin you claim that Thiblin told you that there is "not much empirical data to go on"' as to how long "a seeping bleeding" could last, but that "ten to fifteen minutes'" possible. Not maximum - possible.

So Thiblin stated that he had very little data and estimated 10 to 15 minutes.

James stated he had no data at all and estimated 3 to 7 minutes, based on you suggesting those numbers.

Your 'blood evidence" is not evidence. It is your interpretation of vague questions that you asked from men who said they had little or no data to base their estimates on.

and not forgetting Dr Biggs who stated that blood can still flow from a dead body long after the 15 minute window Fisherman seeks to rely on to prove his theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Mark J D]

Other suspects were found. For example, John Pizer was a strong suspect till he was found to have an alibi for the Chapman murder.

Charles Lechmere had an alibi for the Chapman murder as well, which should "nullify" him as a suspect unless someone can prove the alibi was faked.

Uh, no. Pizer's alibi was for the night of the Nichols murder: he was talking to a copper during the dock fire.

And the Chapman ToD has been known as problematic since long before Lechmere was ever talked about: I knew about it decades ago. On top of which, Lechmere doesn't actually have 'an alibi' for the 5:30 slot: you are mis-using the word, and more besides.

M.

[Trevor Marriott]

Just like the makers of the "documentary". Only some of the documentary's "facts" were opinions.

going back to my conversation with Scobie for those who question it and suggest I had made it up !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. He says he never met Christer during the making of the program

2. He was not provided with the witness testimony but simply given by C5 what he describes as bullet points relating to the evidence, which he thinks originated from Christer, It was this that he was asked to read and give his opinion on.

3. He states that the sum total of his input was between 30-45 mins of which most as was seen was edited out.

4. He states when he was asked about Cross giving a false name and its importance he replied that in his opinion that was insignificant to the other facts- edited out

5. He never saw the coroners summing up

6. He accepts that had he been shown the full facts then his opinion might have been different.

I would suggest the other contributers were treated in the same way

www.trevormarriott.co.uk